AC+ 


SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 


SCIENCE  AND  ART 
OF  DEBATE 


By 

EDWIN  DuBOIS  SHURTER 

Editor  of  "Oratory  of  the  South:  From  the  Civil  War  to  the 
Present  Time,"  "The  Modern  Speaker,"  and  "Masterpieces  of 
Modern  Oratory."  Author  of  "Public  Speaking"  and  "Ex- 
tempore Speaking." 


New  York  and  Washington 

THE  NEALE  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 

1908 


Copyright,  1908,  by 
The  Neale  Publishing  Company 


PREFACE 

This  book  treats  of  the  various  ways  of  convinc- 
ing and  persuading  men.  While  intended  as  a  text- 
book for  schools  and  colleges,  it  is  also  adapted  to 
the  needs  of  the  lawyer,  the  preacher,  the  teacher, 
the  citizen;  in  short,  to  anyone  who  is  called 
upon — as  who  is  not? — to  urge  the  acceptance  of 
his  ideas  upon  a  hearer,  or  to  refute  ideas  offered 
in  opposition  thereto. 

In  our  schools  and  colleges  the  value  of  argu- 
mentation as  an  independent  branch  of  study  is 
now  generally  recognized.  But  numerous  as  are 
the  treatises  on  argumentation,  the  subject  of  de- 
bate is  usually  treated  in  a  single  chapter,  or  not  at 
all.  This  book  aims  to  meet  the  needs  not  only  of 
the  expert  in  argumentation,  but  also  of  the  practi- 
cal debater.  The  average  citizen  is  called  upon  to 
argue  orally  far  oftener  than  he  is  required  to  pre- 
sent a  written  argument;  and  of  what  avail  is  his 
knowledge  and  logic  if  they  cannot  be  utilized  in 
the  discussions  of  every-day  life?  However,  any 
attempt  to  teach  debate  in  a  thorough  and  system- 
atic manner  must  involve  the  study  of  argumenta- 
tion generally,  and  this,  in  turn,  involves  practice 
in  writing  and  argumentative  composition.  A 
treatise  on  debate,  therefore,  must  include  the 
subject  of  argumentation  in  all  its  phases, — analy- 
sis, evidence,  proof,  the  different  kinds  of  argu- 
ments and  how  to  meet  them.  But  the  present 


267355 


6  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

volume  goes  further  than  this,  and  aims  to  show 
the  student  how  he  may  utilize  his  training  in 
writing  when  he  is  called  upon  to  present  his  argu- 
ments orally  before  an  actual  audience  and  in  the 
presence  of  an  opponent  who  is  waiting  to  reply. 

Debate  being  primarily  a  disciplinary  study,  not 
an  informing  one,  the  ultimate  purpose  of  instruc- 
tion in  this  line  must  be  to  lead  one  to  think  -for 
himself,  to  check  errors  in  reasoning,  and  to  think 
straight.  Debate  is  therefore  a  difficult  subject  to 
treat  in  a  formal  manner.  The  endeavor  has  been, 
however,  to  develop  the  treatment  in  a  systematic 
way,  making  all  suggestions  as  specific  as  possible, 
giving  attention  to  one  thing  at  a  time,  and  supple- 
menting principles  and  theories  with  illustrative 
matter  and  with  exercises  for  practice.  In  the  one 
hundred  and  fifty  questions  for  debate  contained 
in  the  Appendix  will  be  found  a  wide  range  of  sub- 
jects for  special  investigations,  discussions,  and 
moot  court  practice. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  treatise  many  helpful 
suggestions  have  been  secured  from  various  works 
on  argumentation;  special  acknowledgements  of 
which  will  be  found  in  the  text.  Parts  of  the  In- 
troduction and  of  Chapters  I  and  II  originally  ap- 
peared in  the  American  Debater  (the  January, 
February,  and  March  numbers,  1902). 

E.  D.  S. 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  TEXAS. 


CONTENTS 

Page 
Introduction 

The  Advantages  of  Debate 9 

The  Elements  of  Debate 13 

CHAPTER  I 
Subjects  for  Debate — Form  and  Matter  ...      19 

CHAPTER  II 
Analysis  of  the  Question 30 

CHAPTER  III 
Proof 62 

CHAPTER  IV 
Evidence {73 


CHAPTER  V 
Direct  Proof — Kinds  of  Arguments 91 

CHAPTER  VI 
Refutation    127 

CHAPTER  VII 
Preliminary  Reading  and  Classification  ....    150 


8  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

CHAPTER  VIII 
The  Brief 158 

CHAPTER  IX 
Persuasion    194 

CHAPTER  X 
Methods  in  School  and  College  Debating  ...    255 

Appendix:    Subjects  for  Debate 265 

Index   279 


INTRODUCTION 

I.    THE  ADVANTAGES  OF  DEBATE 

In  noting  tendencies  in  modern  education,  the 
revival  and  spread  of  the  practice  of  debate  in 
school  and  college  is  significant.  In  England, 
where  collegiate  debates  have  long  been  features 
of  educational  endeavor,  Oxford  and  Cambridge 
each  have  from  twenty  to  twenty-five  debat- 
ing societies,  debating  has  always  been  an  im- 
portant feature  of  university  life,  and  many  of 
England's  distinguished  orators  and  statesmen  re- 
ceived their  first  training  in  these  societies.  In 
America,  within  the  past  ten  or  fifteen  years,  there 
has  come,  in  and  out  of  colleges,  a  noteworthy  re- 
vival of  the  old-time  debating  lyceum, — though  in 
some  cases  it  has  been  revived  under  another  name. 
Intercollegiate  athletics  have  been  paralleled  by 
intellectual  athletics  in  the  form  of  intercollegiate 
debates. 

The  cause  of  this  marked  interest  in  debating 
among  students  is  not  far  to  seek.  In  the  first 
place,  it  represents  not  so  much  a  reaction  against 
college  athletics, — which  is  sometimes  claimed, — 
as  activity  along  similar  lines  and  through  similar 


IO  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

causes.  As  the  typical  American  student  of  to- 
day is  no  longer  the  "pale"  student,  too  ethereal 
for  a  vigorous  physical  life,  so,  on  the  mental  side, 
he  is  no  longer  the  simple  "book-worm"  wholly 
removed  from  the  currents  of  thought  and  action  in 
the  great  world-life  for  which  he  is  supposedly 
making  preparation.  He  is  now  preparing  to  meet 
the  demands  of  American  citizenship,  and  by 
studying  and  discussing  the  economic,  social,  and 
political  questions  which  are  pressing  constantly 
for  solution,  is  fitting  himself  as  a  leader  and 
speaker  of  the  future. 

Practice  in  oral  argumentation  has  many  special 
advantages,  among  which  may  be  mentioned: 

1.  As  a   branch   of  public  speaking,    debating 
keeps  a  speaker  to  the  point.     The  real  debater 
cannot  indulge  in  "glittering  generalities,"  but  has 
a  definite  issue  to  which  to  speak.     The  faults  of 
vapid  utterances,  so  common  in  formal  oratory,  of 
attempts  at  mere  rhetoric,  and  of  the  general  lack 
of  unity  and  coherence  so  common  in  public  speech 
are  thus  avoided. 

2.  Debating  teaches  one  to  think  for  himself. 
It    conduces    to    logical,    clear,    and    independent 
thinking.     And  this  is  a  rare  accomplishment,  for 
few   people    really   think   for   themselves.      How 
many  of  our  opinions  and  so-called  "convictions," 
opinions   which   we   hold  as   axiomatic,    are   bor- 


INTRODUCTION  1 1 

rowed  from  those  with  whom  we  have  been  asso- 
ciated. The  process  of  debating  is  the  crucial  test 
as  to  the  value  of  such  opinions.  Mere  assertion 
or  citing  the  opinion  of  another  will  not  avail 
in  debate,  as  one  must  state  reasons  for  the  faith 
that  is  in  him.  All  propositions,  opinions,  and  as- 
sertions come  to  the  mind  of  the  educated  man 
punctuated  with  interrogation  points.  "Beware," 
says  Emerson,  "when  the  great  God  lets  loose  a 
thinker  on  this  planet."  UI  believe  that  the  next 
generation,"  says  President  Hadley,  of  Yale,  "will 
recognize  that  precision  of  thought  is  what  dis- 
tinguishes the  first-rate  speaker  from  the  second- 
rate  speaker;  and  that  this  precision  can  be  ob- 
tained if,  instead  of  hurling  facts  of  science  or  lan- 
guage or  history  at  his  impervious  skull,  we  open 
his  eyes  to  the  infinite  possibilities  of  close  thought 
and  precise  expression  in  all  fields  of  knowledge."1 
Perhaps  no  study  equals  debate  in  the  acquire- 
ment of  the  power  of  logical  thinking  combined 
with  clear  expression.  Many  branches  of  study 
must  be  taken  largely  on  the  authority  of  special- 
ists, but  the  discussion  of  debatable  questions  of 
the  day  opens  up  a  field  of  subjects  upon  which  au- 
thorities (Mer  so  widely  that  no  opinion  is  ortho- 
dox. Tms  the  novice  in  debate  soon  discovers. 

1  Harper's  Magazine  for  June,  1905. 


12  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

He  rises,  and  with  great  satisfaction  proceeds  to 
enlighten  his  hearers  upon  the  subject  under  dis- 
cussion, employing  "strong  assertion  without 
proof,  declamation  without  argument,  and  violent 
censure  without  dignity  or  moderation."  But  pres- 
ently, as  he  sees  the  bottom  knocked  out  of  his  ar- 
guments, he  becomes  disgusted  with  his  second- 
hand opinions  and  begins  to  think  for  himself. 
Nothing  is  so  conducive  to  thought  as  the  direct 
contact  of  mind  with  mind.  Nothing  so  widens 
one's  mental  vision  as  an  effort  to  define  one's  po- 
sition upon  a  given  subject.  Nothing  so  clearly 
and  forcibly  shows  a  man  the  unstable  foundations 
of  his  opinions  as  an  attempt  to  support  these  opin- 
ions in  the  face  of  unsparing  criticism. 

3.  Debating  produces  broad-mindedness  and 
toleration.  It  does  this  by  compelling  attention  to 
both  sides  of  a  question — for  any  really  debatable 
question  always  has  two  sides.  Practice  in  debate 
cultivates  the  habit  of  looking  at  truth,  not  in  iso- 
lated and  fragmentary  forms,  but  in  all  its  rela- 
tionships. It  is  unfortunate  for  any  man,  or  class 
of  men,  to  be  placed  under  such  conditions  that 
their  opinions  are  given  out  as  authoritative  and 
received  as  such — or,  if  not  so  received,  are  deliv- 
ered when  no  opportunity  is  afforded  fi§r  their  ut- 
terances to  be  disputed.  Hence  the  tendency  of 
preachers  and  teachers  to  become  dogmatic  and 


INTRODUCTION  13 

narrow.  Lawyers,  on  the  other  hand,  are,  as  a 
class,  liberal-minded  and  tolerant.  Is  not  this  be- 
cause of  the  practice  in  debate  that  their  profession 
affords?  The  hard  knocks  they  give  and  receive 
make  them  tolerant  of  antagonistic  views.  So  the 
practice  that  students  have  in  discussing  either  the 
affirmative  or  negative  side  of  a  debatable  question 
tends  to  remove  unfounded  prejudice  and  narrow- 
ness. The  trained  mind  is  broad,  impartial,  and 
comprehensive  in  its  vision;  and  these  are  the 
elements  of  mind  necessary  to  draw  conclusions 
and  solve  problems. 

II.  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  DEBATE 

Whenever  people  disagree  in  a  discussion,  and 
produce  reasons  to  support  their  respective  views, 
they  are  debating.  Debate  is  therefore  a  far 
more  common  exercise,  in  all  relations  of  life,  than 
we  are  apt  to  think.  Its  object  is  to  discover 
truth,  to  determine  upon  which  side  of  a  given 
question  the  truth  lies.  Debating  is  not  conten- 
tiousness; it  is  a  logical  discussion  for  the  purpose 
of  elucidating  thought  or  influencing  action.  "Ar- 
gument, in  the  sense  of  controversy,  seems  to  be 
on  the  whole  less  seriously  taken  than  it  used  to 
be;  argument,  in  the  sense  of  care  in  forming 
opinions,  seems  to  be  on  the  whole  more  seriously 


14  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

cultivated."2  Even  in  societies  organized  for  the 
purpose,  debate  should  have  for  its  object  the  vin- 
dication of  some  truth,  and  the  question  should  be 
seriously  disputed. 

In  its  broad  sense,  then,  debate  is  the  search  for 
truth.  Truth  is  susceptible  of  proof.  Hence  the 
common  definition  of  argumentation  as  "the  pro- 
cess of  proving  or  disproving  a  proposition."  -  Al- 
den  3  says :  "If  argumentation  is  the  art  of  con- 
vincing others  of  the  truth  of  falsity  of  a  disputed 
matter,  debate  may  be  said  to  be  the  art  of  doing 
this  under  conditions  such  that  both  sides  of  the 
case  can  be  heard  and  that  the  advocates  of  each 
side  can  reply  directly  to  those  of  the  other." 
Jevons  4  says:  "When  we  join  terms  together,  we 
make  a  proposition;  when  we  join  propositions 
together,  we  make  an  argument,  or  piece  of  reason- 
ing." "When  we  join  the  arguments,  or  pieces  of 
reasoning  together,"  says  Baker,5  "we  have  argu- 
mentation." And  it  might  be  added  that  when 
the  arguments  are  stated  orally,  in  the  presence  of 
an  opponent  who  is  waiting  to  reply,  we  have 
debate. 

None    of    the    foregoing    definitions,    however, 

2  Sidgwick,  "The  Process  of  Argument,''  p.  197. 

3  "Art  of  Debate,"  p.  i. 

*  "Primer  of  Logic,"  p.  12. 

5  "Principles  of  Argumentation,"  p.  33. 


INTRODUCTION  15 

define  any  means  for,  nor  do  they  set  up  any  stand- 
ard of  conviction.  He  who  is  an  honest  seeker 
for  truth  will  necessarily  employ  truthful  means 
in  discovering  and  presenting  it.  He  will  not  at- 
tempt to  convince  by  fair  means  or  foul,  but  will 
be  honest  with  himself  and  his  hearers,  and  will 
never  appeal  to  low  or  mean  motives.  Debate 
may  therefore  be  defined  as  the  science  and  art  of 
producing  In  others,  through  proper  appeals  to 
the  Intellect  and  emotions  by  means  of  argument, 
a  belief  In  the  Ideas  which  we  wish  them  to  accept. 
"An  argument  is  a  fact  or  principle,  or  set  of  facts 
or  principles,  adduced  as  evidence  of  some  other 
fact  or  principle"6;  it  is  the  process  whereby  the 
connection  between  that  which  is  admitted  and  that 
which  is  doubted,  is  traced  or  tested. 

Our  definition  denominates  debate  as  both  a 
science  and  an  art.  "A  science,"  says  Jevons, 
"teaches  us  to  know,  and  an  art  to  do."  In  dis- 
covering and  classifying  the  means  whereby  a 
man's  understanding  is  convinced  and  his  feelings 
moved,  we  are  dealing  with  debate  as  a  science; 
in  employing  these  means  as  applied  to  a  given 
question,  we  are  dealing  with  debate  as  an  art. 
And  these  two  processes  are  inseparable  in  de- 
bating. The  debater  must  both  acquire  and  give ; 

6  Bain,  "Rhetoric,"  p.  229. 


1 6  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

he  must  be  able  both  to  find  reasons  and  also  to 
express  those  reasons  to  a  hearer  or  hearers  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  induce  belief. 

Again,  our  definition  comprehends  two  means 
of  producing  belief  in  the  mind  of  a  hearer — by 
appeals  to  the  intellect  and  to  the  emotions.  Hence 
the  usual  classification  of  debate  into  the  two  grand 
divisions — Conviction  and  Persuasion.  These 
terms  are  often  used  synonymously,  but  for  our 
purposes  we  will  understand  that  conviction 
refers  to  belief  reached  through  the  intellect,  and 
persuasion  to  belief  reached  through  the  emotions, 
or  affected  by  them.  These  two  processes  are  al- 
ways combined,  in  varying  degrees,  in  all  debating. 
By  a  process  of  pure  reasoning  you  may  convince  a 
hearer  that  your  argument  is  sound — the  demon- 
stration of  a  proposition  in  geometry  is  a  familiar 
example;  but  in  the  discussion  of  questions  of  the 
hour  logic  alone  is  rarely. sufficient.  You  wish  the 
hearer  not  only  to  accept  your  reasoning  as  sound, 
but  to  accept  it  as  his  own,  and  if  need  be,  to  act 
upon  it.  That  is,  you  wish  to  reach  his  will — to  have 
him  act  as  you  desire,  to  lead  him  to  adopt  a  given 
course  as  a  line  of  conduct,  to  vote  for  a  verdict 
for  your  client,  or  for  a  measure  that  you  are 
favoring.  And  this  conquest  of  the  will  is  not 
infrequently  a  far  more  difficult  problem  than  the 
conquest  of  the  intellect,  for  uone  convinced 


INTRODUCTION  17 

against  his  will  is  of  the  same  opinion  still."  Pre- 
judices, idiosyncrasies,  and  motives  of  self-interest 
must  be  removed  or  won  over  to  your  side.  This 
is  the  work  of  persuasion — to  appeal  to  those 
emotions  which  affect  the  will  and  touch  the  springs 
of  action.  Matthew  Arnold  defines  persuasion  as 
"the  instilment  of  conviction."  That  is,  persua- 
sion is  not  distinct  from  conviction,  but  reenforces 
it.  Generally,  a  foundation  for  an  appeal  to  the 
emotions  must  be  laid  by  an  appeal  to  the  intellect, 
for  ordinarily  men  will  not  act  unless  they  see  a 
reason  for  so  doing.  Sometimes,  however,  if  one 
is  addressing  a  hostile  audience,  or  is  antagonizing 
existing  notions  and  prejudices,  the  conquest  of  the 
disposition  must  precede  the  conquest  of  the  intel- 
lect: "The  best  way  to  convert  a  hungry  man  is 
to  feed  him."  Again,  the  relative  amount  of  con- 
viction and  persuasion  to  be  employed  in  a  given 
argument  will  vary  with  the  occasion  and  the 
audience.  In  an  intercollegiate  debate,  the  pri- 
mary aim  is  conviction ;  the  ordinary  stump  speaker 
depends  almost  wholly  upon  persuasion.  So,  in 
a  legal  argument  addressed  to  a  judge,  the  lawyer 
uses  conviction  almost  solely;  in  an  argument  to  a 
jury,  a  much  larger  proportion  of  persuasion  is 
desirable.  Not  that  these  two  methods  of  winning 
hearers  to  one's  point  of  view  are  separable ;  they 
belong  side  by  side,  for  the  use  of  either  method 


1 8  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OP   DEBATE 

is  usually  futile  without  the  support  of  the  other. 
But  for  the  purpose  of  systematic  treatment  of  our 
subject  in  its  subsequent  development,  we  shall  first 
give  attention  to  that  part  of  argumentation  which 
has  to  do  with  conviction;  the  subject  of  per- 
suasion will  be  dealt  with  in  a  separate  chapter. 
It  should  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  such 
separate  treatment  is  for  pedagogic  reasons  only, 
since  in  any  debate  both  conviction  and  persuasion 
must  supplement  each  other  in  order  to  attain  the 
most  effective  results. 


CHAPTER  I 

SUBJECTS  FOR  DEBATE FORM  AND  MATTER 

A  proposition  necessary  in  debate. — A  de- 
batable question  implies  that  a  given  proposition 
is  maintained  by  one  and  doubted  or  denied  by 
another.  It  implies  a  disagreement,  else  there  is 
nothing  to  debate.  In  the  questions  on  which 
people  disagree,  as  discussions  arise  in  every-day 
life,  there  is  ordinarily  no  stated  proposition  to 
formulate  the  matter  in  dispute;  and  one  of  the 
first  things  that  one  skilled  in  argument  will  do,  is 
to  reduce  the  discussion  to  such  form,  whereupon 
one  of  three  situations  will  develop :  either  the 
disputants'  views  are  (i)  identical,  or  (2)  they  are 
discussing  two  wholly  different  propositions,  or 
(3)  they  take  issue  squarely  with  each  other.  In 
the  first  instance,  the  formulation  of  the  subject 
under  discussion  into  a  clear  statement  removes 
any  seeming  disagreement.  In  the  second  in- 
stance, the  discussion  would  be  as  if  two  trains 
passed  each  other  in  opposite  directions  on  parallel 
tracks.  In  the  last  instance,  there  is  what  may  be 
called  a  debate  "head  on" — a  direct,  square  col- 
lision. 

(19) 


20  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF   DEBATE 

A  proper  subject  for  debate,  then,  must  be 
capable  of  affirmation  and  denial,  and  a  proposi- 
tion is  the  only  rhetorical  form  that  lends  itself 
to  this  requirement.  A  proposition  is  "a  form  of 
speech  in  which  a  predicate  is  affirmed  or  denied 
of  a  subject";  it  is  a  statement  that  something  is 
or  is  not.  And  something  must  always  be  pred- 
icated of  a  subject  in  order  to  raise  an  issue  for 
debate.  "The  Chinese  in  America"  might  be  a 
proper  subject  for  a  lecture  or  an  oration,  but  in 
order  to  debate  the  Chinese  question  some  proposi- 
tion regarding  the  Chinese  in  America,  as,  "The 
Chinese  Exclusion  laws  should  be  repealed,"  must 
be  laid  down.  You  cannot  argue  a  mere  term  or 
phrase.  You  may  explain  a  term,  but  only  a 
proposition  is  susceptible  of  proof  or  disproof. 
The  advocate,  for  example,  may  need  to  make  clear 
by  exposition  what  larceny  or  arson  is,  but  he  can- 
not argue  the  terms  "arson"  and  "larceny";  he 
can  argue  that  "This  man  is  guilty  of  arson",  or 
that  "My  client  is  innocent  of  larceny."  "Argu- 
mentation attempts  not  only  to  explain  why  cer- 
tain ideas  are  as  they  are,  but  also  to  convince  the 
understanding  that  they  are  as  they  are,  or  that 
they  ought  to  be  as  they  are  not."1  And  in  order 
to  do  this,  argument  requires  for  a  starting-point 
the  affirmation  or  denial  of  a  definite  proposition. 

iBrewster,  Introduction  to  "Specimens  of  Narration." 


SUBJECTS  FOR  DEBATE  21 

Stating  the  proposition.  In  formulating  the 
proposition  it  should  be  so  stated  as  to  indicate  the 
issue  for  debate.  In  deliberative  bodies  the  issue 
is  expressed  in  the  form  of  a  motion,  a  resolution, 
or  a  bill ;  in  legal  practice,  by  the  pleadings  in  the 
case.  In  formal  debate  the  proposition  may  be  put 
in  the  form  of  either  a  declaratory  sentence,  a  ques- 
tion, or  a  resolution.  Whichever  of  these  forms 
be  used,  the  proposition  should  be  stated  ( i ) 
affirmatively  and  (2)  clearly. 

1.  To  affirm  a  denial  is  always  a  weak  state- 
ment, for  no  one,  in  the  first  instance,  can  well 
prove  a  negation.     To  put  the  matter  in  another 
way,  the  affirmative  should  be  called  upon  to  pre- 
sent  a   constructive   line   of   argument.     Now    in 
many  questions  of  pure  fact  one  may  affirm  one 
side  or  the  other  of  a  matter  in  dispute.     But  in 
those  questions  where  a  change  in  present  condi- 
tions or  policies  is  proposed,  the  proposed  change 
should  be  affirmed.     For  example,  if  one  were  to 
affirm  that  "the  formation  of  a  National  Debating 
League  is  undesirable,V  he  is  placed  in  the.  position 
of  defending  an  existing  condition  before  it  has 
been  attacked.     In  questions  of  reform  or  of  policy 
the  test  would  be:  Does  the  affirmative  of  this 
proposition  propose  any  change   in   existing  con- 
ditions ? 

2.  The  proposition  should  be  stated  in  clear, 


22  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

unambiguous  language,  so  that  the  issue  raised  is 
plainly  indicated.  Otherwise,  we  shall  have  a  de- 
bate, not  on  the  proposition,  but  on  its  meaning. 
This  is  always  unfortunate.  It  is  a  trying  ordeal 
for  any  audience  to  hear  students  carry  on  a  debate 
which  is  nothing  more  than  a  continuous  quibbling 
over  the  meaning  of  terms.  Sometimes  the  young 
speaker — the  "smart"  debater — goes  out  of  his 
way  to  evolve,  by  a  narrow  or  strained  construc- 
tion, some  unusual  and  surprising  meaning  to  be 
applied  to  terms  used.  But  when  this  sort  of 
"debating"  is  carried  to  excess,  it  is  a  questionable 
preparation  for  real  life.  Reasonable  people  do 
not  debate  words,  but  ideas.  And  if  unfortunately 
there  are  ambiguous  words  in  the  proposition  as 
stated,  it  is  far  better,  if  possible,  for  each  side  to 
agree  on  the  meaning  of  such  words  in  advance, 
in  order  that  the  discussion  may  proceed  on  the 
issue  itself. 

Therefore  great  care  should  be  exercised  in 
eliminating  all  ambiguous  words  in  stating  the 
proposition;  and  only  those  who  have  had  ex- 
perience can  realize  how  difficult  this  often  is. 
With  the  issue  clearly  in  mind,  it  is  sometimes 
exceedingly  difficult,  in  an  effort  for  due  conciseness, 
to  state  the  proposition  so  that  the  question  means 
the  same  thing — for  that  is  the  point — to  both  the 
affirmative  and  negative  speakers.  As  one  means 


SUBJECTS  FOR  DEBATE  23 

to  this  end,  avoid  the  use  of  general  terms  that 
have  no  generally  accepted  meaning.  Such  cur- 
rent expressions  as  the  "Monroe  Doctrine,"  "Im- 
perialism," "Expansion,"  "Anarchy,"  might  be 
variously  defined.  A  proposition  for  debate  re- 
lating to  any  of  these  terms  should  be  stated  with 
more  definiteness  than  the  terms  themselves  could 
possibly  express.  For  example,  in  a  debate  on  the 
question,  "Resolved,  that  all  anarchists  in  this 
country  should  be  deported  to  one  of  our  island 
possessions,"  the  discussion  would  necessarily  turn 
on  the  special  question,  Who  are  "anarchists"? 
The  affirmative  would  attempt  to  show  that  they 
constitute  a  dangerous  class  whose  deportation 
would  be  justifiable;  the  negative  would  bring 
forth  evidence  to  show  that  the  term  included  law- 
abiding  citizens,  acting  within  the  constitutional 
guaranties  of  freedom  of  thought  and  speech. 
Either  side  would  therefore  be  debating  two  wholly 
different  propositions.  If  the  question  be  stated, 
"Resolved,  that  all  persons  employing  or  advocat- 
ing force  in  destroying  or  changing  our  govern- 
ment, should  be  deported,"  while  we  may  not 
have  a  comprehensive  definition  of  "anarchists," 
we  have  at  least  given  the  question,  for  the  purpose 
of  debate,  a  more  definite  meaning. 

One  other  point  in  this  connection:    All  ques- 
tion-begging epithets  should  be  avoided;    that  is, 


24  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

the  use  of  terms  which  either  argue  or  assume  to 
decide  the  question  in  advance.  A  glaring  example 
of  this  somewhat  common  fault  would  be:  "Re- 
solved, that  the  unjustifiable  course  of  President 
Roosevelt  in  appointing  a  negro  to  office  should 
be  condemned."  "Unjustifiable"  is  of  course  the 
question-begging  term ;  for  if  the  appointment  was 
unjustifiable,  of  necessity  it  is  to  be  condemned. 
But  whether  or  not  the  appointment  was  justifiable 
is  the  issue  for  debate. 

PROPER  QUESTIONS  FOR  DEBATE 

As  questions  for  debate  arise  in  practical  life, 
one  does  not  usually  select  the  subjects — they 
come.  But  whenever  the  subjects  are  to  be  de- 
liberately chosen,  as  in  debating  societies  and  class 
exercises,  some  care  should  be  used  in  selecting 
questions,  and  some  general  suggestions  may  well 
be  heeded.  What  sort  of  questions  should  be 
chosen?  Let  us  partially  answer  this  question  by 
a  process  of  exclusion,  and  consider  certain  classes 
of  subjects  to  be  avoided  for  formal  debate. 

i.  Propositions  which  cannot  be  seriously  dis- 
puted. A  bald  example  of  such  propositions 
would  be  a  geometrical  theorem.  Or,  "Resolved, 
that  the  Caucasian  is  a  white  man,"  is  not  a  de- 
batable question.  There  are  no  black  Caucasians. 


SUBJECTS  FOR  DEBATE  25 

Nor  could  any  one  advantageously  debate  such 
obvious  propositions  as,  "Resolved,  that  Shake- 
speare was  a  great  poet";  or,  "Resolved,  that  the 
murder  of  President  McKinley  was  reprehensible." 
A  question  not  having  two  sides  seriously  disputed, 
or  one  whose  obviousness  is  concealed  by  the  form 
of  statement,  should  never  be  chosen  for  debate; 
in  short,  the  question  should  be  really  debatable. 

2.  Propositions  the  truth  of  which  is  practically 
incapable  of  proof  or  disproof.  Although  the 
truth  or  error  of  most  debatable  propositions,  as 
they  arise  in  real  life,  cannot  be  demonstrated  with 
mathematical  exactness,  yet  those  questions  which 
are  capable  of  only  a  slight  degree  of  approxi- 
mation to  proof  should  be  avoided.  For  example, 
take  such  time-worn  questions  as,  "Resolved,  that 
the  pulpit  affords  more  opportunities  for  eloquence 
than  the  bar" ;  "Resolved,  that  the  pen  is  mightier 
than  the  sword."  So  vague  questions  of  taste,  as 
the  relative  merits  of  two  great  poets,  or  of  two 
great  generals;  while  such  questions  may  be  in 
teresting  and  profitable  for  general  discussion,  they 
are  unsuited  for  formal  debate.  The  proof  is  too 
elusive  and  indefinite ;  neither  side  can  come  within 
range  of  a  common  object  for  attack  or  defense. 

"A  generation  ago,"  runs  a  recent  editorial  in 
the  Saturday  Evening  Post,  "rural  debaters  used 
to  fall  about  one  another's  ears  discussing  what 


26  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

would  happen  if  an  irresistible  force  met  an  im- 
movable body.  The  question  of  the  superior  sex  is 
a  fitting  substitute.  It  is  alluring  because  it  is  elu- 
sive ;  it  is  possible  to  discuss  it  with  delightful  acri- 
mony because  no  solution  is  attainable."  "Does  the 
public  speaker  exert  a  greater  influence  than  the 
writer?"  is  a  question  submitted  in  a  recent  treatise 
on  debate.  Now  the  natural  course  of  events  in 
the  argument  of  such  a  question  is  for  the  affirma- 
tive to  heap  up  examples  showing  the  influence 
of  the  public  speaker,  and  the  negative  to  adduce 
examples  showing  the  influence  exerted  by  the 
writer.  The  affirmative  might  also  point  out  cer- 
tain disadvantages  under  which  the  writer  must 
labor,  as  compared  with  the  public  speaker,  and 
the  negative  would  adopt  a  vice  versa  treatment. 
The  question  states  a  comparison,  but  no  common 
standard  for  comparison  could  be  found,  and 
hence  no  satisfactory  proof  or  disproof  is  possible. 
3.  Propositions  having  more  than  one  main 
issue.  The  reason  for  this  caution  is  obvious.  It 
is  based  on  the  rule  in  deliberative  bodies  which 
allows  a  member  to  divide  a  motion  that  contains 
more  than  one  issue,  so  that  the  assembly  need 
debate  but  one  question  at  a  time.  Sometimes  in 
formal  debate  two  main  propositions  are  included 
in  the  statement  of  the  question,  with  a  view  of 
thus  making  the  question  more  evenly  divided. 


SUBJECTS  FOR  DEBATE  27 

But  unless  such  a  purpose  is  in  mind,  avoid  a  com- 
pound or  complex  statement.  For  example,  "Re- 
solved that  the  United  States  government  should 
inaugurate  a  comprehensive  plan  for  the  improve- 
ment of  our  inland  waterways,  and  that  the  Missis- 
sippi River  should  be  made  navigable  for  deep- 
sea  vessels  as  far  north  as  St.  Louis."  Plainly, 
here  are  two  separate  propositions,  and  either  of 
them  would  furnish  ample  opportunity  for  an 
hour's  debate.  Again,  a  question  may  be  stated 
singly,  on  its  face,  and  involve  several  definite 
issues.  For  example,  "Resolved,  that  President 
Roosevelt's  foreign  policy  should  be  approved." 
A  moment's  analysis  of  the  term  "foreign  policy" 
will  show  that  the  Panama,  Cuban,  Philippine, 
Chinese,  and  Japanese  questions,  not  to  mention 
other  matters  of  foreign  policy  dealt  with  during 
Roosevelt's  administration,  are  all  included  in  the 
statement  of  this  question. 

4.  Propositions  of  no  interest  in  themselves,  or 
of  no  interest  to  the  audience  addressed.  In  view 
of  what  has  previously  been  said  regarding  the 
object  and  nature  of  debating,  this  caution  may 
seem  superfluous;  but  observation  shows  that  de- 
bating societies  constantly  violate  this  rule.  Such 
questions  as,  "Resolved,  that  ambition  is  produc- 
tive of  more  good  than  evil,"  that  "The  cow  is  a 
more  useful  animal  than  the  horse,"  as  subjects 


28  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

for  debate  are  in  line  with  the  grave  discussions 
of  the  medieval  theologians  on  such  questions  as, 
"How  many  angels  can  stand  on  the  point  of  a 
needle  at  one  time?"  The  "corner  grocery" 
Solons  may  choose  to  discuss  questions  whose  only 
opportunity  for  debate  is  furnished  by  some  in- 
genious play  upon  words,  but  such  aimless  ques- 
tions are  unworthy  the  attention  of  serious  men. 
The  trouble  comes,  in  part  at  least,  from  viewing 
debating  as  a  mental  exercise  in  public  speaking, 
rather  than  as  a  practical  means  to  an  end.  In  a 
country  where  public  opinion  is  the  mainspring  of 
government;  where  great  economic,  social  and 
political  questions  are  pressing  for  solution;  and 
where  the  solution  must  come  mainly  through  that 
body  of  educated  young  men  constantly  being  in- 
fused into  its  body  politic, — why  should  any  asso- 
ciation of  school  or  college  students  waste  its  ener- 
gies in  debating  subjects  which  call  forth  only  a 
technical  or  theoretical  treatment,  or  serve  only  a 
a  means  for  an  ingenious  display  of  so-called  wit? 
If  the  foregoing  cautions  be  observed,  they  will 
at  least  help  to  start  the  search  for  debatable  ques- 
tions in  the  right  direction.  To  summarize  these 
cautions  in  an  affirmative  form :  Subjects  for  de- 
bate should  be  single,  unambiguous  propositions, 
having  an  affirmative  and  a  negative  side,  capable 
of  approximate  proof  or  disproof,  and  of  genuine 
interest  to  the  audience  addressed. 


SUBJECTS  FOR  DEBATE  29 

EXERCISES 

Let  the  student  determine  wherein  the  following  questions 
(collated  from  treatises  on  debate  and  from  published  lists) 
are  open  to  criticism,  either  as  to  form  of  statement  or  as  to 
subject-matter: 

1.  Is  photography  of  greater  practical  value  than  mechanical 
drawing? 

2.  Was  Titian  a  greater  artist  than  Correggio? 

3.  Is  the  Wagnerian  school   entitled  to  a  permanent  place  in 
classical  interpretation? 

4.  Is  Art  the  handmaid  of  Science? 

5.  The  best   way  to   solve   our   so-called   Race  Problem   is   to 
stop  talking  about  it. 

6.  In    the    next    Presidential    election,    Democracy    should    be 
triumphant. 

7.  Was  Burke   a  greater  orator  than   Fox? 

8.  Are  all  men  "born  free  and  equal"? 

9.  Is  "Quo  Vadis"   a   more  powerful   novel   that  "Ben   Hur"? 

10.  Resolved,   that    if   conscience   says   a   thing   is    right,    it   is 
right. 

11.  Resolved,  that  the  time  has  come   when   in   place  of   our 
present  robber  tariff  we  should  adopt  the  saner  policy  of  tariff 
for  revenue  only. 

12.  Resolved,  that  whenever  Congress  has  to  deal  with  ques- 
tions involving  the  possibilities  of  war,  jingoism  and  politics  play 
too  prominent  a  part. 

13.  Resolved,  that  there  is  more  happiness  than  misery  in  life. 

14.  Railroads   in  the   United   States   should  not  be  owned   by 
the  government. 

15.  Reciprocity  tariff  treaties  should  displace  our  present  pro- 
tective tariff,  and  free  trade  should  be  instituted. 


CHAPTER  II 

ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION 

Given  a  good  subject  for  debate,  stated  affirma- 
tively and  in  unambiguous  language,  the  next  step 
for  the  debater  is  to  ask  himself  such  questions 
as  these:  Just  what  does  this  question  mean? 
What  issue  or  issues  are  raised  by  it?  What  must 
be  proved  to  establish  the  affirmative  of  the  ques- 
tion ?  and  what  must  be  proved  to  defend  the  nega- 
tive? In  other  words,  he  must  analyze  the  ques- 
tion. Analysis  is  the  process  whereby  the  propo- 
sition for  debate  is  resolved  into  its  constituent 
elements.  It  is  a  process  of  critical  examination, 
in  order  to  extract  the  essence  of  the  question  and 
to  ascertain  the  single  propositions  that  enter  into 
the  argument  of  the  proposition  as  a  whole. 

Now,  analysis  enters  into  debating  at  every  step, 
in  the  development  of  the  direct  argument,  and 
in  rebuttal.  The  skillful  debater  will  not  only 
analyze  the  argument  for  himself,  but  at  every 
point  will  analyze  the  argument  of  his  opponent, 
so  that,  as  the  debate  proceeds,  he  is  able  to  state, 
concisely  and  clearly,  the  point  toward  which  the 
argument  leads,  and  the  stage  of  development  in 

(30) 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION  31 

the  arguments  on  either  side.  "An  analysis  of  the 
debate  at  this  point,"  he  will  frequently  be  led  to 
observe,  "shows  that  the  affirmative  rest  their  ar- 
gument on  such  and  such  lines  of  proof,  and  the 
negative  base  their  contention  on  such  and  such 
points."  He  thus  makes  plain  to  the  audience  the 
relation  of  his  further  argument  to  what  has  pre- 
ceded, and  points  out  any  fallacies  in  the  argument 
of  his  opponent.  The  well-known  opening  words 
of  Webster,  in  his  famous  Reply  to  Hayne,  is  illus- 
trative : 

When  the  mariner  has  been  tossed  for  many  days  in 
thick  weather  and  on  an  unknown  sea,  he  naturally  avails 
himself  of  the  first  pause  in  the  storm,  the  earliest  glance 
of  the  sun,  to  take  his  latitude  and  ascertain  how  far  the 
elements  have  driven  him  from  his  true  course.  Let  us 
imitate  this  prudence,  and,  before  we  float  farther  on  the 
waves  of  this  debate,  refer  to  the  point  from  which  we 
departed,  that  we  may  at  least  be  able  to  conjecture  where 
we  now  are.  I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  resolution 
before  the  Senate. 

So  Lincoln,  in  his  "Divided  House"  speech,  be- 
gan as  follows: 

If  we  could  first  know  where  we  are,  and  whither  we 
are  tending,  we  could  better  judge  what  to  do,  and  how 
to  do  it. 

The  analysis  now  referred  to,  however,  is  that 


32  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

preliminary  analysis  which  should  make  clear  the 
meaning  of  the  question,  bring  out  the  debatable 
issue  or  issues,  show  the  lines  of  proof  essential 
to  a  given  side,  and  also  show  the  arguments  on 
the  opposing  side  that  needs  be  met. 

Now,  this  process  of  preliminary  analysis  is  too 
often  neglected  by  the  inexperienced  debater.  A 
student  is  apt  to  work  out  lines  of  proof  before  he 
knows,  from  careful  analysis,  just  what  proof  is 
required.  He  may  have  read  widely  on  the  ques- 
tion, but  he  has  failed  to  do  that  preliminary  think- 
ing for  himself  which  shows  him  the  bearings  and 
limitations  of  the  discussion.  If  one  has  but  two 
hours,  say,  to  prepare  on  a  question  for  debate,  it 
is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  ordinarily  one  hour 
of  that  time  could  most  profitably  be  devoted  to 
an  analysis  of  the  question, 

STEPS  IN  ANALYSIS 

All  argument  consists  in  leading  another's 
thought  over  the  same  course  your  own  thought 
has  pursued  in  reaching  a  certain  conclusion.  An 
analysis  of  the  question  will  show  the  point  to  be 
reached  and  the  ground  to  be  covered  in  reaching 
it.  It  will  show  the  work  to  be  done,  and  how 
it  is  to  be  done.  In  this  preliminary  analysis  there 
are  usually  at  least  four  steps — not  always  clearly 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION  33 

separated  in  practice — that  demand  attention,  when 
one  takes  up  the  consideration  of  a  question  for 
debate.  These  steps  are :  ( i )  Define  the  question; 

(2)  State  the  common  ground  in  the  discussion; 

(3)  Determine  the  main  issue,  or  issues;   and  (4) 
Locate  the  burden  of  proof. 

i.  Definition. — We  have  previously  noted  the 
desirability  of  having  the  question  for  debate  so 
stated  that  it  means  the  same  thing  to  both  sides. 
Assuming  that  this  has  been  done  as  well  as  de- 
sired conciseness  will  allow,  it  rarely  happens  that 
some  of  the  terms  do  not  need  defining,  or  in  any 
case  that  the  proposition  as  a  whole  does  not  re- 
quire some  exposition  or  explanation.  As  distin- 
guished from  a  purely  technical  or  logical  process 
of  defining,  the  definition  of  a  question  for  debate 
usually  involves  an  examination  into  the  origin 
of  the  question,  and  an  explanation  both  of  the 
terms  of  the  proposition  and  of  the  question  as  a 
whole. 

An  examination  into  the  origin  of  the  question 
will  raise  such  queries  as :  How  does  the  question 
arise  as  a  subject  for  debate?  What  place  does 
it  hold  in  current  discussion?  What  is  the  nature 
and  trend  of  public  discussion  concerning  it?  The 
answers  to  these  queries  will  serve  the  two-fold 
purpose  of  engaging  the  attention  of  the  audience 
and  also  of  throwing  light  upon  the  meaning  of  the 
3 


34  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

question  generally.  As  to  the  latter  purpose,  the 
general  understanding  of  the  question  by  the  pub- 
lic mind  will  frequently  serve  as  a  check  against 
an  over-logical  construction. 

In  the  Cornell-Pennsylvania  Debate  of  1899, 
for  example,  Cornell  had  the  negative  of  the  ques- 
tion, "Resolved,  that  the  interests  of  the  United 
States  are  opposed  to  the  permanent  acquisition  of 
territory  in  the  Eastern  Hemisphere,  except  so 
much  as  may  be  needed  for  naval  stations."  The 
negative  side  offered  the  following  logical  line  of 
argument :  New  Zealand  lies  just  over  the  line  of 
the  Eastern  Hemisphere;  its  territory  is  inhabited 
by  a  highly  civilized  and  progressive  people;  and 
could  the  United  States  peaceably  acquire  these 
islands,  many  strong  reasons  could  be  adduced  to 
show  that  their  permanent  acquisition  would  be  to 
our  best  interests.  But  in  current  discussion  it  was 
not  New  Zealand  to  which  the  acquisition  of  terri- 
tory in  the  East  related,  but  the  Philippine  Islands. 
The  Cornell  debaters  therefore  decided  that  they 
could  not  afford  to  go  before  a  general  audience 
and  rest  their  case  on  an  argument  for  the  acquisi- 
tion of  New  Zealand,  without  shirking  the  real 
issue  raised  by  the  question. 

In  addition,  then,  to  furnishing  a  natural  intro- 
duction for  the  opening  of  the  debate,  an  examina- 
tion of  the  origin  of  the  question  will  throw  light 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION  35 

upon  the  question  as  a  whole  and  aid  materially 
in  the  definition  of  terms. 

In  defining  a  term,  we  are  always  attempting 
to  explicate,  more  or  less  directly,  the  nature  and 
limitations  of  an  idea  expressed  by  a  word  or 
phrase.  "Definition,"  says  Quintillian,  "is  an  ex- 
plication of  something  in  question,  proper,  clear, 
and  concisely  expressed."  By  "logical  definition" 
is  meant  a  concise  statement  of  the  trait  or  traits 
most  essential  to  an  object.  It  involves  two  pro- 
cesses :  ( i )  The  object  to  be  defined  is  identified 
with  a  class  of  objects — the  genus;  and  (2)  its 
particular  place  in  the  class  is  determined  by  some 
distinguishing  trait  or  traits — the  differentia  or 
species.  For  example :  "Literature  is  the  written 
record  of  valuable  thought  having  other  than 
merely  practical  purposes."  In  this  definition 
"written  record"  is  the  genus;  the  remainder  of 
the  statement  is  the  differentia  or  species.  Again : 
Anarchists  are  (genus)  those  men  (species)  who 
believe  in  the  abolition  of  all  government." 
Creighton,  in  his  "An  Introductory  Logic,"  lays 
down  the  following  requirements  of  a  logical  defi- 
nition : 

A  definition  should  (i)  state  the  essential  attributes 
of  the  thing  to  be  defined;  (2)  should  not  contain  the 
word  to  be  defined,  nor  any  word  which  is  directly 
synonymous  with  it;  (3)  should  be  exactly  equivalent 


36  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

to  the  class  of  objects  defined,  that  is,  neither  too  broad 
nor  too  narrow;  (4)  should  not  be  expressed  in  obscure, 
figurative,  or  ambiguous  language;  (5)  it  should,  when- 
ever possible,  be  affirmative  rather  than  negative. 

But  a  strictly  logical  definition  is  frequently  in- 
sufficient in  debate.  Standing  by  itself,  it  is  too 
severe  and  compact  to  be  impressive.  It  needs 
to  be  amplified — the  terms  explained,  illustrated, 
restated  in  another  and  fuller  form,  distinguished 
and  qualified — in  order  to  make  the  meaning 
clearer  and  more  readily  comprehensible  to  an  un- 
scientific mind.  Nor  will  a  dictionary  definition 
always  help  us  out  of  the  difficulty,  for  dictionary 
definitions  frequently  deal  largely  in  synonyms,  and 
include  the  various  meanings  a  word  may  have. 
The  use  of  a  synonym  will  rarely  make  clearer  the 
meaning  of  a  term ;  and  for  a  speaker  to  pick  out 
some  particular  definition  favorable  to  his  side  of 
the  question  is  of  no  avail,  for  his  opponent  can 
ordinarily  do  the  same.  Sometimes,  however,  a 
method  akin  to  the  use  of  synonyms — sometimes 
called  the  method  of  analysis — may  be  helpful. 
For  example,  in  an  essay  entitled  "Is  the  World 
Growing  Better?"  Dr.  Henry  Van  Dyke  says: 

"Growing  better"  is  a  phrase  about  which  a  company 
of  college  professors  would  probably  have  a  long  pre- 
liminary dispute,  but  plain  people  understand  it  well 
enough  for  practical  purposes.  There  are  three  factors 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION  37 

in  it.  When  we  say  that  a  man  grows  better,  we  mean 
that,  in  the  main,  he  is  becoming  more  just,  and  careful 
to  do  the  right  thing;  more  kind,  and  ready  to  do  the 
helpful  thing;  more  self-controlled,  and  willing  to  sacri- 
fice his  personal  will  to  the  general  welfare.  Is  the  world 
growing  better  in  this  sense?  Is  there  more  justice,  more 
kindness,  more  self-restraint  among  the  inhabitants  of 
the  earth  than  in  the  days  of  old  ? 

Two  other  common  faults  of  dictionary  defini- 
tions are :  ( i )  They  are  often  given  in  the  techni- 
cal language  of  the  specialist,  and  (2)  they  fail 
to  give  the  special  or  transitory  meanings  that  par- 
ticular words  or  terms  may  have  with  reference  to 
questions  of  the  day.  As  a  familiar  example  of 
the  first  fault,  take  Samuel  Johnson's  dictionary 
definition  of  "network" :  "Anything  reticulated  or 
decussated  at  equal  distances  with  interstices  be- 
tween the  intersections."  As  an  illustration  of  the 
second  fault,  take  the  proposition,  "The  indepen- 
dence of  Cuba  should  be  maintained."  Webster 
defines  "independence"  as  "exemption  from  re- 
liance on  others  or  control  by  them."  But  as  ap- 
plied to  the  proposition  under  consideration,  it  will 
be  found,  first,  that  the  independence  of  Cuba  is 
limited  by  its  treaty  relations  with  the  United 
States,  and  secondly,  that  the  term  is  also  limited 
in  its  use  by  the  special  meaning  given  it  in  the 
code  of  the  law  of  nations.  For  an  adequate  and 


38  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

exact  definition,  therefore,  an  authority  on  inter- 
national law  must  be  consulted.  Again,  if  a  stu- 
dent were  to  debate  the  question,  "Resolved,  that 
in  football  a  more  open  style  of  play  should  be  sub- 
stituted for  the  present  close  formation,"  it  is  ob- 
vious that  the  most  recent  dictionaries  could  hardly 
be  expected  to  give  satisfactory  definitions  of  "open 
style  of  play"  and  "close  formation." 

The  definitional  amplification  that  debating  re- 
quires will  of  course  vary  in  amount,  depending 
upon  the  terms  used  in  a  given  proposition,  and 
may  be  accomplished  in  various  ways.  With  refer- 
ence both  to  single  terms  and  to  the  question  as 
a  whole,  some  of  the  methods  of  supplementing  a 
purely  logical  definition  are  by  the  use  of  nega- 
tion, antithesis,  exemplification,  analogy,  illustra- 
tion, and  description. 

By  negation  is  meant  the  making  of  a  term  or 
question  clearer  by  telling  what  it  is  not.  It  is  a 
process  of  exclusion.  It  is  frequently  used  with 
good  effect,  not  as  a  substitute  for  Creighton's  fifth 
rule  for  a  logical  definition,  but  as  a  supplement  to 
it.  "This  term,"  the  debater  says,  "means  not 
this  or  this,  but  it  means  this."  Voltaire  used  this 
method  when  he  wittily  remarked  that  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire  was  neither  holy,  nor  Roman,  nor 
an  empire. 

Definition   by   antithesis   is   a   special   form   of 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION  39 

negation.  Two  terms  that  are  likely  to  be  con- 
fused are  balanced,  the  one  against  the  other,  so 
that  by  a  series  of  distinctions  the  difference  in  their 
meanings  is  made  clear.  For  example,  John 
Stuart  Mill  thus  distinguishes  eloquence  from 
poetry : 

Poetry  and  eloquence  are  both  alike  the  expression  or 
utterance  of  feeling;  but,  if  we  may  be  excused  the  an- 
tithesis, we  should  say  that  eloquence  is  heard,  poetry  is 
overheard.  Eloquence  supposes  an  audience.  The  pecu- 
liarity of  poetry  appears  to  lie  in  the  poet's  utter  uncon- 
sciousness of  a  listener.  Poetry  is  feeling  confessing  itself 
to  itself  in  moments  of  solitude,  and  embodying  itself  in 
symbols  which  are  the  nearest  possible  representations  of 
the  feeling  in  the  exact  shape  in  which  it  exists  in  the 
poet's  mind.  Eloquence  is  fteling  pouring  itself  out  to 
other  minds,  courting  their  sympathy,  or  endeavoring  to 
influence  their  belief,  or  move  them  to  passion  or  to  action. 

Exemplification,  analogy,  illustration,  and  de- 
scription, as  used  for  definitional  purposes,  may  be 
considered  together.  They  are  often  highly  ser- 
viceable in  illuminating  a  term  whose  meaning  it 
is  essential  that  the  audience  understand.  The 
logical  or  dictionary  definition,  we  will  say,  has  set 
the  limits  to,  and  described  the  nature  of,  a  word 
or  phrase;  the  use  of  negation  and  antithesis  has 
tended  to  remove  obscurity  and  misunderstanding. 
But  frequently  a  further  explanation  is  necessary. 


40  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

Hence  we  find  all  the  best  argumentative  writers 
and  speakers  taxing  their  ingenuity  in  the  search 
for  clear,  interesting,  and  forcible  methods  of  pre- 
senting their  definitions.  Henry  Ward  Beecher, 
in  his  Liverpool  speech,  used  analogy  as  a  means  of 
definition,  as  follows: 

A  savage  is  a  man  of  one  story,  and  that  one  story  a 
cellar.  When  a  man  begins  to  be  civilized  he  raises 
another  story.  When  you  Christianize  and  civilize  the 
man,  you  put  story  upon  story,  for  you  develop  faculty 
after  faculty;  and  you  have  to  supply  every  story  with 
your  productions. 

Similarly,  it  is  description  and  not  definition 
when  Emerson  says  that  eloquence  is  ua  taking 
sovereign  possession  of  the  audience."  Dr.  Lyman 
Abbott  combines  negation,  antithesis,  analogy,  and 
description  in  the  following  definition  of  education : 

The  function  of  education  is  not  to  add  something  to 
man  from  without,  but  to  develop  man  from  within;  in 
other  words,  education  is  development.  ...  It  is  not  an 
addition  to  nature,  still  less  is  it  something  antagonistic 
to  nature.  ...  It  is  the  whole  process  by  which  the 
child  who  is  but  a  seed  may  be  developed  into  the  tree; 
the  child  who  is  but  a  germ  may  be  developed  into  the 
man;  the  child  who  is  but  a  beginning  may  be  carried  on 
towards  completion.  This,  and  nothing  less  than  this,  is 
education.  It  is  the  training  of  the  whole  man — of  his 
hand,  of  his  eye,  of  his  feet,  of  his  reason,  of  his  judg- 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION  4! 

ment,  of  his  taste,  of  his  conscience,  of  his  physical,  in- 
tellectual, and  moral  powers ;   in  a  word,  of  the  man.1 

Again,  definition  must  not  only  be  clear  and  in- 
telligible, it  must  above  all  be  reasonable.  That 
is,  in  the  last  analysis  it  must  be  tested  by  the 
popular  or  common  understanding  of  the  terms 
used.  In  legal  practice,  it  is  true,  the  sole  issue 
may  sometimes  be  the  meaning  of  terms,  and  the 
case  is  tried  on  this  issue — as  in  the  interpretation 
of  words  or  clauses  in  a  will.  But  in  formal  de- 
bating, be  it  said  once  more,  one  should  debate, 
not  the  terms  of  the  proposition,  but  the  proposi- 
tion. True,  a  common  understanding  of  the  terms 
may  not  always  be  possible,  but  in  any  event  the 
preliminary  analysis  will  show  just  where  the  af- 
firmative and  negative  differ  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  question,  and  they  can  then  fight  it  out,  if  they 
must, on  that  line;  in  which  case,  a  reasonable, clear, 
and  striking  definition  goes  far  toward  winning  the 
debate.  But  it  is  purposeless  and  silly  for  one 
to  waste  his  time  quibbling  over  terms  and  working 
out  hair-splitting  distinctions  that  convince  nobody 
and  weary  the  hearers. 

The  various  phases  and  methods  of  definition 
show  its  importance  in  debating.  In  his  recent 
course  of  Lowell  Institute  lectures  Professor  Wil- 

1<(The  Rights  of  Man,"  pp.  148-149. 


42  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

liam  James,  of  Harvard,  emphasizes  the  fact  that 
"nine-tenths  of  the  bitterest  disputes  are  really 
about  definitions.  When  one  faction  loudly  asserts 
that  a  certain  thing  is  so,  and  another  as  loudly 
proclaims  that  it  is  not,  the  trouble  usually  is  that 
the  two  sides  understand  different  things  by  the 
word  or  phrase  in  question,  and  that  each  is  right, 
provided  its  own  definition  be  adopted."2  And  yet 
one  should  be  careful  about  defining  too  much;  it 
is  well  to  assume  average  intelligence  on  the  part  of 
the  hearers.  The  right  kind  of  definition  elimin- 
ates confusion  and  vagueness,  limits  the  proposi- 
tion, and  puts  the  debaters  and  the  hearers  on 
common  ground. 

2.  The  Common  Ground. — Amateurs  in  debate 
often  need  to  learn  that  it  is  neither  necessary  nor 
desirable  to  controvert  every  point  raised  by  their 
opponents,  to  dissipate  their  energies  in  opposing 
what  it  would  only  strengthen  their  case  to  admit. 
The  skillful  debater  learns  to  yield  cheerfully  any 
point  raised  that  is  not  essential  to  the  proof  of 
the  main  point  or  points  in  the  discussion.  By 
"the  common  ground"  is  meant  those  points  on 
which  both  sides  agree — the  points  that  are  con- 
ceded or  granted.  In  this  step  in  analysis  the 
debater  asks  himself  such  questions  as :  What  mat- 

~  See  The  Popular  Science  Monthly  for  March,  1907. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION  43 

ters  likely  to  be  connected  with  this  question  can 
I  safely  concede  without  affecting  my  position? 
and  what  matters  is  it  reasonable  to  assume  that 
my  opponents  will  yield?  For  example,  take  the 
question,  "Resolved,  that  the  deportation  of  all 
negroes  in  this  country  to  one  of  our  island  posses- 
sions offers  the  best  solution  of  the  race  problem. " 
The  common  ground  in  this  question  might  be 
stated  as  follows:  It  is  granted  that  the  presence 
of  the  negroes  in  America  presents  a  problem  that 
as  yet  remains  unsolved;  that  both  sides  admit  the 
existence  of  the  problem  and  the  need  of  some  solu- 
tion; that  in  the  discussion  of  the  particular  solu- 
tion proposed,  the  deportation  would  be  effected, 
so  far  as  possible,  in  accordance  with  the  demands 
of  justice  and  humanity.  If  this  much,  say,  be 
granted  by  both  sides,  the  essential  points  of  dif- 
ference, the  points  on  which  there  is  a  real  clash 
of  opinion,  are  left  for  the  undivided  attention 
which  they  deserve. 

3.  The  Main  Issue. — Having  definitely  deter- 
mined the  common  ground,  the  next  step  in 
analysis  is  to  discover  what  there  is  left  in 
the  proposition  for  debate;  in  other  words,  to 
find  the  main  issue.  What  is  meant  by  the  main 
issue  ?  It  is  that  point  in  which  the  debate  centers, 
and  about  which  the  whole  discussion  revolves; 
it  is  that  which  must  chiefly  be  proved  in  order  to 


44  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

prove  your  case.  Rarely  is  a  question  for  debate 
so  stated  that  the  evidence  can  be  applied  directly 
to  the  whole  case.  By  analysis  you  must  usually 
work  out  another  statement  which  points  to  the 
issue  or  issues.  Such  intermediate  steps  are  almost 
always  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  getting  a 
groundwork  for  an  argument.  In  many  cases 
there  may  be  a  main  issue,  and,  resulting  therefrom, 
two  or  three  special  issues.  For  example,  take  the 
proposition,  uThe  standing  army  of  the  United 
States  should  be  increased."  In  support  of  this 
proposition  you  might  say  that  we  need  more  regu- 
lar  soldiers  to  quell  disorder  during  strikes  and 
riots,  to  fight  Indians,  to  protect  national  reserva- 
tions, to  send  to  Cuba  and  to  the  Philippine  Islands, 
etc.  But  so  far  the  argument  is  all  a  jumble. 
You  must  get  some  point  or  points  toward  which 
all  these  reasons  are  directed.  You  must  find  the 
issues.  Now  in  this  question  you  might  say  that 
the  main  issue  is,  What  is  the  need  of  any  standing 
army  at  all  in  the  United  States?  And  in  answer 
to  this  question — the  main  issue — there  might  be 
worked  out  these  two  special  issues :  We  need  a 
standing  army  (i)  for  domestic  service  and  (2^ 
for  foreign  service.  The  sub-propositions,  then, 
that  the  affirmative  would  undertake  to  maintain 
in  order  to  prove  the  main  proposition  would  be: 
( i )  Our  standing  army  should  be  increased  to 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION  45 

ensure  effective  domestic  service,  and  (2)  it  should 
be  increased  to  ensure  effective  foreign  service. 

We  have  seen  that  a  statement  of  the  common 
ground  is  one  way  of  reaching  the  main  issue.  In 
many  questions  of  the  day  one  needs  to  go  a  step 
farther,  and  ask:  What  ideas  usually  connected 
with  this  question  in  popular  discussion  of  it  and 
likely  to  connect  themselves  with  it,  are,  after  all, 
wholly  extraneous? — ideas,  that  is  to  say,  which 
the  opposing  side  may  not  in  the  first  instance 
admit,  but  which  in  fact  have  nothing  to  do  with 
•  the  case.  In  political  questions,  for  example, 
whereon  people  disagree  in  part  by  reason  of  party 
affiliations,  we  shall  find  that  popular  discussions 
are  full  of  so-called  arguments  far  removed  from 
the  real  issues.  For  example,  in  the  question, 
"Resolved,  that  the  United  States  should  not  re- 
tain permanent  control  of  the  Philippine  Islands," 
the  first  speaker  on  the  affirmative,  in  an  inter-col- 
legiate debate,  eliminated  extraneous  ideas  put 
forth  in  popular  discussion  and  reached  the  main 
issue,  as  follows: 

The  issue  in  this  debate  is  not  the  wisdom  or  justice 
of  our  past  action,  but  relates  to  a  policy  for  the  future. 
Whether  the  Paris  peace  commissioners,  acting  under  the 
advice  of  military  and  naval  experts,  did  right  or  wrong 
in  demanding  from  Spain  the  entire  Philippine  archi- 
pelago instead  of  a  single  base  for  a  naval  station,  is  not 


46  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

the  question.  Whether  the  President  and  Congress  were 
justified  in  insisting  upon  the  establishment  of  order  and 
the  acknowledgment  of  American  authority  in  the  islands, 
is  not  the  question.  We  are  there.  Our  government  is 
the  only  recognized  government  there.  And  the  ques- 
tion is,  Shall  we  continue  a  policy  now  fully  inaugu- 
rated, or  shall  we  abandon  it  and  withdraw?  The  ques- 
tion is,  with  conditions  as  they  exist  to-day,  shall  the 
United  States  look  to  the  abandonment  and  relinquish- 
ment  of  any  and  every  kind  of  authority  and  control  over 
the  Philippine  islands? 

Mr.  Carl  Schurz,  in  his  great  speech  in  the 
United  States  Senate  in  1872,  favoring  the  removal^ 
of  all  political  disabilities  imposed  as  a  result  of 
the  Civil  War,  frequently  reminded  his  hearers  of 
the  main  issue,  as  the  following  excerpts  will  show 
(the  words  of  reference  to  the  main  issue  being 
italicized)  : 

What  are  the  best  means  for  the  attainment  of  that 
end  [national  well-being]  ?  This,  sir,  as  I  conceive  it, 
is  "the  only  legitimate  question  we  have  to  decide.  .  .  . 
When  we  raised  the  colored  people  to  the  rights  of  active 
citizenship  and  opened  to  them  all  the  privileges  of  eli- 
gibility, we  excluded  from  those  privileges  a  large  and 
influential  class  of  whites;  in  other  words,  we  lifted  the 
late  slave,  uneducated  and  inexperienced  as  he  was,  not 
merely  to  the  level  of  the  late  master  class,  but  even  above 
it.  We  asked  certain  white  men  to  recognize  the  colored 
man,  in  a  political  status  not  only  as  high  but  even  higher 
than  their  own.  ,  .  You  tell  me  that  the  late  rebels  had 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION  47 

deserved  all  this  in  the  way  of  punishment.  Granting 
that,  I  beg  leave  to  suggest  that  this  is  not  the  question. 
The  question  is:  What  were  the  means  best  calculated 
to  overcome  the  difficulties  standing  in  the  way  of  a  will- 
ing and  universal  recognition  of  the  new  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  emancipated  class?  What  were  the 
means  to  overcome  the  hostile  influences  impeding  the 
development  of  the  harmony  of  society  in  its  new  order? 
.  .  .  Some  senator,  referring  to  a  defaulting  paymaster 
who  experienced  the  whole  rigor  of  the  law,  asked  us, 
"When  a  poor  defaulter  is  punished,  shall  a  rebel  go 
free?  Is  embezzlement  a  greater  crime  than  treason?" 
No,  sir,  it  is  not;  but  again  I  repeat,  that  is  not  the  ques- 
ion.  The  question  is  whether  a  general  amnesty  to 
bels  is  not  far  more  urgently  demanded  by  the  public 
interest  than  a  general  pardon  for  thieves.3 

Masters  in  debate  have  always  possessed  a 
talent  for  separating  the  kernel  of  a  proposition 
from  the  chaff;  the  power  of  detecting,  in  the 
midst  of  a  mass  of  confusing  details,  the  vital 
point  in  the  discussion.  Lincoln,  for  example,  was 
noted  for  his  power  in  analysis.  It  has  been  said 
of  him  that  his  mind  "  ran  back  behind  facts,  prin- 
ciples, and  all  things,  to  their  origin  and  first  cause 
— to  that  point  where  forces  act  at  once  as  effect 
and  cause.  Before  he  could  form  an  idea 
of  anything,  before  he  would  express  his  opinion 
on  a  subject,  he  must  know  its  origin  and  history 

8Ringwalt,  "Modern  American  Oratory,"  pp.  95-113. 


48  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

in  substance  and  quality,  in  magnitude  and  gravity. 
He  must  know  it  inside  and  outside,  upside  and 
downside.  Thus  everything  had  to  run  through 
the  crucible  and  be  tested  by  the  fires  of 
his  analytic  mind;  and  when  at  last  he  did  speak, 
his  utterances  rang  out  with  the  clear  and  keen 
ring  of  gold  upon  the  counters  of  the  understand- 
ing." In  the  introduction  of  his  noteworthy 
address  at  Cooper  Institute,  New  York,  February 
27,  1860,  this  analytic  quality  is  forcibly  shown. 
Taking  as  his  "text"  a  quotation  from  Senator 
Douglas,  Lincoln  defines  the  terms,  states  the  com-A 
mon  ground,  and  then  reaches  the  main  issue,  as 
follows : 

In  his  speech  last  autumn,  at  Columbus,  Ohio,  as  re- 
ported in  the  New  York  Times,  Senator  Douglas  said: 
"Our  fathers,  when  they  framed  the  government  under 
which  we  live,  understood  this  question  just  as  well,  and 
even  better,  than  we  do  now." 

I  fully  endorse  this,  and  I  adopt  it  as  a  text  for  this 
discourse.  I  so  adopt  it  because  it  furnishes  a  precise  and 
agreed  starting-point  for  a  discussion  between  Republi- 
cans and  that  wing  of  the  Democracy  headed  by  Senator 
Douglas.  It  simply  leaves  the  inquiry:  What  was  the 
understanding  those  fathers  had  of  the  question  men- 
tioned ? 

What  is  the  frame  of  government  under  which  we 
live?  The  answer  must  be,  "The  Constitution  of  the 
United  States."  .  .  .  Who  were  our  fathers  that  framed 
the  Constitution?  I  suppose  the  thirty-nine  who  signed 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION  49 

the  original  instrument  may  be  fairly  called  our  fathers 
who  framed  that  part  of  our  present  government.  .  .  . 
What  is  the  question  which,  according  to  the  text,  those 
fathers  understood  "just  as  well,  and  even  better,  than 
we  do  now"?  It  is  this:  Does  the  proper  division  of 
local  from  Federal  authority,  or  anything  in  the  Consti- 
tution, forbid  our  Federal  Government  to  control  slavery 
in  our  Federal  territories?  Upon  this,  Senator  Douglas 
holds  the  affirmative,  and  the  Republicans  the  negative. 
This  affirmation  and  denial  form  an  issue;  and  this 
issue — this  question — is  precisely  what  the  text  declares 
our  fathers  understood  "better  than  we."4 

Again,  in  the  following  letter5  to  General 
McClellan,  dated  June  28,  1862,  Lincoln  first 
states  the  main  issue, — as  to  which  one  of  two 
military  movements  was  the  better, — and  then  pre- 
sents, as  determining  the  main  issue,  five  special  is- 
sues: 

You  and  I  have  distinct  and  different  plans  for  a  move- 
ment of  the  Army  of  the  Potomac — yours  to  be  down  the 
Chesapeake,  up  the  Rappahannock  to  Urbana,  and  across 
land  to  the  terminus  of  the  railroad  on  the  York  River; 
mine  to  move  directly  to  a  point  on  the  railroad  south- 
west of  Manassas. 

If  you  will  give  me  satisfactory  answers  to  the  follow- 
ing questions,  I  shall  gladly  yield  my  plan  to  yours. 

4  "Perry,  Little  Masterpieces,"  pp.  37-39. 
0  Idem,  pp.  109-110. 


50  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

First.  Does  not  your  plan  involve  a  greatly  larger 
expenditure  of  time  and  money  than  mine? 

Second.  Wherein  is  a  victory  more  certain  by  your 
plan  than  mine? 

Third.  Wherein  is  a  victory  more  valuable  by  your 
plan  than  mine? 

Fourth.  In  fact,  would  it  not  be  less  valuable  in  this, 
that  it  would  break  no  great  line  of  the  enemy's  commu- 
nications, while  mine  would? 

Fifth.  In  case  of  disaster,  would  not  a  retreat  be  more 
difficult  by  your  plan  than  mine? 

Webster,  in  his  famous  debate  with  Hayne, 
the  main  issue  as  follows : 

The  inherent  right  in  the  people  to  reform  their 
government  I  do  not  deny;  and  they  have  another  right, 
and  that  is,  to  resist  unconstitutional  laws  without  over- 
turning the  government.  It  is  no  doctrine  of  mine  that 
unconstitutional  laws  bind  the  people.  The  great  ques- 
tion is,  Whose  prerogative  is  it  to  decide  on  the  consti- 
tutionality or  unconstitutionality  of  the  laws?  On  that 
the  main  debate  hinges. 

So  Burke,  in  his  speech  on  "Conciliation  with 
the  American  Colonies,"  thus  states  the  two  main 
issues : 

The  capital  leading  questions  on  which  you  must  this 
day  decide,  are  these  two:  First,  whether  you  ought  to 
concede;  and,  secondly,  what  your  concession  ought  to  be. 

If  the  proposition  for  debate  raises  a  political, 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION  51 

economic,  or  social  question,  where  some  remedy  is 
advocated  for  existing  ills,  the  point  at  issue  can 
usually  be  found  by  working  out  the  analysis  on 
the  analogy  of  a  sick  man:  (i)  What  is  wrong? 
(illness)  ;  (2)  Will  the  proposed  plan  correct  the 
evils  complained  of?  (remedy)  ;  (3)  Is  it  the 
best  solution?  (the  only  cure) .  For  example,  take 
the  proposition,  ''Trusts  should  be  suppressed." 
After  defining  "trusts,"  and  admitting  that  there 
are  certain  evils  connected  with  their  organization 

«I  management,  we  might  say  that  the  main  issue 
uld    be:       Should    trusts    be    suppressed,     or 
mid  they  be  controlled  and  regulated  by  the 
government?     That  is,  the  debate  would  center  in 
"another  remedy"  argument. 

One  further  example,  with  a  different  method 
of  approach.  Take  the  question,  "Resolved,  that 
three-fourths  of  a  jury  should  be  competent  to 
render  a  verdict  in  criminal  cases."  On  analysis  it* 
will  appear  that  both  sides  admit  that  absolute  jus- 
tice cannot  always  be  expected  in  jury  trials.  The 
question,  therefore,  is :  How  secure  the  most  per- 
fect justice  consistent  with  a  uniform  system? 
There  are  two  sorts  of  interests  involved:  (i) 
the  interest  of  the  accused,  that  he  shall  not  be 
unjustly  convicted  (the  present  status)  ;  (2)  the 
interest  of  the  people  as  a  whole,  that  the  guilty 
shall  not  escape  punishment.  The  main  issue, 


52  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

therefore,  might  be  thus  stated:  Will  the  proposed 
change  increase  the  probability  of  public  justice 
without  lessening  the  probability  of  justice  to  the 
accused? 

From  the  foregoing  examples,  and  by  way  of 
summary,  we  may  say  that  in  order  to  find  the 
issues  the  debater  must  ( i )  study  the  question 
thoroughly  in  all  its  phases  and  details ;  ( 2 )  study 
both  sides  of  the  question ;  (3)  exclude  all  granted, 
admitted,  and  extraneous  matter;  and  (4)  deter- 
mine those  points  on  which  there  is  a  direct  clas. 
of  opinion. 

4.  The  Burden  of  Proof.  The  fourth  and  la 
step  in  the  preliminary  analysis  is,  to  locate  the  bur- 
den of  proof.  What  is  meant  by  "burden  of 
proof"?  It  has  been  defined  as  "the  obligation 
resting  upon  one  or  the  other  of  the  parties  to  a 
controversy  to  establish  by  proofs  a  given  propo- 
'sition  before  being  entitled  to  receive  an  answer 
from  the  other  side."  To  put  it  another  way,  the 
burden  of  proof  is  that  obligation  resting  upon 
the  side  that  would  be  assumed  to  be  defeated  if 
no  progress  were  made  in  the  discussion. 

In  the  evolution  of  the  law,  a  large  number  of 
rules  have  been  established  for  governing  the  bur- 
den of  proof,  with  many  of  which  even  the  lay- 
man is  familiar.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  the 
fundamental  maxim.  "He  who  affirms  must 


;r- 

I 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION         ,         53 

prove."  The  defendant  in  a  civil  or  criminal  case 
is  not  required  to  offer  any  proof  until  at  least  a 
prima  facie  case  has  been  proven  against  him. 
The  burden  is  upon  him  who  has  the  affirmative 
of  the  issue — usually  the  plaintiff.  The  degree  of 
the  burden  differs  in  civil  and  criminal  cases:  in 
civil  cases  the  issue  affirmed  must  be  proved  by  ua 
fair  preponderance  of  evidence" ;  in  criminal  cases, 
"beyond  a  reasonable  doubt."  From  the  burden 
of  proof  in  a  given  case  a  certain  degree  of  pre- 
sumption arises.  He  who  has  the  burden  of  proof 
has  the  presumption  in  the  case  against  him,  and 
vice  versa.  Legal  presumptions  vary  in  degree 
from  cases  of  absolute  conclusiveness  to  cases  hav- 
ing such  a  slight  degree  of  presumptiveness  that 
the  burden  of  proof  may  be  easily  shifted  from  one 
side  to  the  other  in  the  controversy.  Thus,  it  is  a 
conclusive  presumption  that  an  idiot,  an  insane 
person,  or  a  child  under  seven  years  of  age  cannot 
commit  crime;  that  if  a  promise  is  secured  by 
force  or  duress,  the  promisor  is  not  bound.  Again, 
if  a  person  has  been  absent  seven  years  without 
having  been  seen  or  heard  from  by  those  who 
would  naturally  have  seen  him  or  heard  from  him, 
the  court  must  presume  that  such  person  is  dead, — 
a  presumption,  however,  that  may  be  overcome  by 
proof, — and  so  on  through  all  degrees,  to  the  ordi- 


54  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

nary  presumption  of  that  "fair  preponderance  of 
proof"  which  is  the  general  rule  in  civil  cases. 

Thayer's  "Preliminary  Treatise  on  Evidence''  re- 
duces the  doctrine  of  legal  presumptions  to  the 
following  four  maxims : 

( i )  No  one  shall,  in  the  first  instance,  be  called  on  to 
prove  a  negative,  or  be  put  on  his  defence,  without  suffi- 
cient evidence  against  him  having  been  offered,  which,  if 
not  contradicted  or  explained,  would  be  conclusive. 
(2)  The  affirmative  of  the  issue  must  be  proved;  other- 
wise men  might  be  called  upon  by  a  stranger  to  prove  the 
title  to  their  property,  which  they  might  often  be  unable 
to  do,  though  the  title  was  in  fact  good.  (3)  Possession 
is  prima  facie  evidence  of  property.  .  .  .  (4)  What- 
ever anything  appears  or  professes  to  be,  is  considered  to 
be  the  fact,  until  the  contrary  is  proved. 

In  conformity  to  these  legal  rules,  the  side  which 
has  the  affirmative  of  the  issue  in  a  debate  is  said 
to  have  the  burden  of  proof.  That  is,  the  burden 
of  proof  is  upon  him  who  would  change  a  present 
custom,  who  attacks  one's  character  or  motives, 
who  proposes  a  change  in  the  established  order  of 
things,  who  champions  a  new  plan  or  policy,  who 
argues  counter  to  the  prevalent  practice,  belief,  or 
opinion.  Corresponding  to  Thayer's  fourtk 
maxim,  as  given  above,  we  might  say  that  the  gen- 
eral presumption  is  that  "whatever  is,  is  right" — 
until  it  is  proven  wrong.  And  as  in  law,  there 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION  55 

are  in  debating  generally  various  degrees  of  pre- 
sumption, depending  upon  the  nature  of  the  propo- 
sition, and  the  time  when,  and  locality  where,  it  is 
proposed.  For  example,  the  presumption  in  the 
United  States  has  always  been  against  a  monarch- 
ial  form  of  government;  in  France,  the  presump- 
tion has  been  shifted  from  a  monarchial  to  a  re- 
publican form;  while  in  Russia  the  presumption  is 
in  favor  of  a  monarchy.  So,  in  the  Southern 
States  the  presumption  is  in  favor  of  a  strict  con- 
struction of  the  Constitution  as  to  the  reserved 
rights  of  the  States,  while  in  the  North  the  pre- 
sumption leans  towards  a  more  liberal  construc- 
tion and  a  stronger  central  government. 

The  shrewd  debater  will  always  take  advan- 
tage of  any  presumptions  in  his  favor;  and  if,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  argument  seems  against  him 
on  the  surface,  he  will  aim  to  change  such  pre- 
sumption. It  very  frequently  happens  that  the 
first  efforts  of  the  debater  must  be  directed  to 
combating  popular  prejudices  or  preconceived 
opinions.  The  burden  of  proof  may  be  shifted  in 
various  ways,  depending,  of  course,  upon  the  ques- 
tion. It  may  be  done  by  showing  that  the  speaker 
and  the  hearers  are,  after  all,  not  so  far  apart  as 
might  appear  on  first  thought,  that  seeming  differ- 
ences are  more  apparent  than  real;  by  showing 
that  one's  ideas  are  not  new  or  revolutionary;  or 


56  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

by  showing  the  intrinsic  reasonableness  of  the 
proposition.  Suppose,  for  example,  one  is  arguing 
in  favor  of  suffrage  for  women.  He  has  existing 
conditions  and,  generally  speaking,  popular  opin- 
ion against  him.  He  might  argue  that  the  under- 
lying idea  of  popular  government  is,  that  all  citi- 
zens have  the  right  to  participate  in  the  govern- 
ment through  the  suffrage,  provided  they  are  cap- 
able of  expressing  themselves  intelligently  on  its 
operations.  Hence  all  male  citizens  except  minors, 
idiots,  and  criminals  are  allowed  to  vote.  Women 
are  also  disfranchised,  but  for  reasons  now  obso- 
lete and  merely  traditional — since  the  political 
privileges  of  women  have  not  kept  pace  with  their 
emancipation  from  the  social  and  intellectual 
bondage  of  the  past.  It  is  therefore  for  those  who 
oppose  granting  women  the  suffrage  to  show  why 
we  should  continue  this  anachronism. 

The  following  examples  of  attempts  to  shift  the 
burden  of  proof,  in  intercollegiate  debates,  will  il- 
lustrate how  the  matter  has  been  worked  out  in 
actual  practice. 

On  the  question,  "Should  the  United  States  re- 
tain permanent  control  of  the  Philippine  Islands?" 
the  first  speaker  on  the  affirmative  anticipated  the 
charge  of  imperialism  that  he  knew  was  likely  to 
come  from  a  Southern  audience,  as  follows: 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION  57 

We  disclaim,  at  the  outset,  any  intention  or  tendency 
of  this  government  to  embark  upon  a  general  imperialistic 
policy  in  the  sense  of  subjecting  other  peoples  to  our  rule 
for  selfish  objects.  If  it  is  imperialism  to  hold  the  Philip- 
pines because  of  the  "consent  of  the  governed"  doctrine, 
then  Jefferson  was  the  prince  of  imperialists  when  he 
purchased  the  Louisiana  Territory  over  the  protests  of 
the  inhabitants.  If  you  say  that  the  purchase  of  the 
Philippines  is  not  an  analogous  case  because  of  distance, 
I  answer  that  by  the  extended  use  of  steam  and  electricity, 
Washington  is  nearer  Manila  to-day  than  it  was  to  St. 
Louis  or  New  Orleans  in  1803.  But,  it  is  said,  great 
evils  must  result  from  the  addition  of  these  islands  to  our 
territory.  Let  me  remind  you  that  every  addition  of 
territory  to  our  country  (and  we  have  been  expansionists 
from  the  beginning  of  our  history)  was  prophesied  to 
portend  the  downfall  of  the  Republic,  while  as  a  matter 
of  fact  each  accession  has  proved  a  mutual  blessing  to 
both  the  United  States  and  the  country  added.  When 
the  addition  of  Louisiana  was  proposed,  for  example,  in 
a  speech  in  Congress  Josiah  Quincy  said:  "If  this  Bill 
passes,  the  bonds  of  the  Union  are  virtually  dissolved. 
The  Constitution  was  never  intended  and  cannot  be 
strained  to  overlap  the  wilderness  of  the  West.  You 
have  no  authority  to  throw  the  rights  and  liberties  and 
prosperity  of  this  people  into  hotchpot  with  the  wild  men 
of  Missouri,  nor  with  the  mixed  race  of  Anglo-Gallo- 
Americans  who  bask  on  the  sands  in  the  mouth  of  the 
Mississippi.  This  Bill,  if  it  passes,  is  a  deathblow  to  the 
Constitution."  But  the  bill  passed,  our  Constitution  sur- 
vives, our  Union  is  more  powerfully  cemented  than  ever, 
and  the  thrift  and  enterprise  of  this  great  Southern 


58  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

metropolis  suggest  anything  else  than  basking  on  the  sands 
of  the  Mississippi.5 

Again,  on  the  proposition  to  have  compulsory 
arbitration  of  disputes  between  public-service  cor- 
porations and  their  employees,  the  first  speaker  on 
the  affirmative  argued  that  such  changes  had  been 
wrought  in  industrial  conditions  as  to  demand  the 
remedy  proposed,  and  closed  as  follows: 

Having  seen  every  form  of  industry  affected  by  strikes 
on  railroads,  having  witnessed  destruction  of  property,  do 
the  gentlemen  of  the  negative  venture  to  say  that  the  ex- 
isting relations  between  railroads  and  their  employees  are 
satisfactory;  do  they  deny  that  the  present  methods  are 
inadequate  to  meet  the  problem  that  confronts  us;  and 
do  they  consider  that  such  a  problem  does  not  demand 
solution  ? 

The  first  speaker  on  the  negative,  by  the  ques- 
tion-asking method,  thus  attempted  to  shift  the 
burden  of  proof: 

It  is  a  little  bit  remarkable,  perhaps,  that  one  should 
open  a  debate  without  outlining  it  in  some  way,  and  with- 
out even  telling  what  the  gentlemen  for  the  affirmative 
expect  to  prove.  It  is  barely  possible  they  don't  expect 
to  prove  anything.  Since  they  do  not  take  upon  them- 
selves the  burden  of  proving  anything,  I  would  say  that 
we,  for  the  negative,  require  and  challenge  them  to  prove 
at  least  four  main  propositions:  (i)  the  need  in  this 

B  From  the  Texas-Tulane  debate  of  1901. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION  59 

country  for  compulsory  boards  of  adjustment  of  labor 
disputes;  (2)  the  practicability  or  workability  of  the 
scheme  proposed;  (3)  the  possibility  in  the  face  of 
American  thought  and  the  spirit  of  our  institutions  and, 
indeed,  in  the  face  of  our  Federal  Constitution  itself — 
especially  the  thirteenth  amendment,  which  declares  that 
"no  one  shall  be  subject  to  involuntary  servitude  except 
as  a  punishment  for  crime";  and  (4)  the  gentlemen  for 
the  affirmative  must  prove  that  the  proposed  scheme  is 
expedient  and  politic. 

And  now  we  have  come  here  to  learn.  We  are  con- 
scientiously seeking  for  some  practical,  expedient,  sensible 
means  of  curing  one  of  our  country's  great  evils — quar- 
rels between  public  corporations  and  their  employees. 
We  recognize  that  evil;  I  will  answer  the  gentleman, 
we  don't  deny  that  evil ;  and  we  are  as  earnestly  and 
conscientiously  looking  for  the  cure  as  are  the  gentlemen 
for  the  affirmative;  but  we  are  going  to  look  pretty  sharp 
to  see,  first,  that  the  panacea  proposed  is  a  cure;  and, 
second,  that  the  cure  is  not  worse  than  the  disease.6 

We  have  noticed  some  of  the  technical  points 
as  to  burden  of  proof  and  presumptions.  But  the 
demands  of  general  debating  are  not  usually  satis- 
fied by  observing  strictly  legal  rules,  or  even  by 
satisfying  the  demands  of  logic.  This  admonition 
may  therefore  well  be  heeded:  In  general  debat- 
ing, do  not  attempt  to  rest  your  argument  upon 
technical  presumptions.  True,  a  lawyer  may  get 
a  prisoner  free  by  discovering  a  flaw  in  the  indict- 

8  From  the  Cornell-Pennsylvania  debate  of  1897. 


60  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

ment;  or  he  may  decline  to  put  his  client  on  the 
witness  stand  in  his  own  defense.  But  it  is  well 
known  that  this  does  not  ordinarily  convince  the 
public  of  the  prisoner's  innocence.  So,  in  general 
debate,  the  question  is  not,  for  example,  whether  a 
plan  proposed  will  meet  the  objections  urged  by  its 
opponents,  but  the  question  in  the  public  mind  is, 
Will  it,  on  the  whole,  be  a  good  plan  to  adopt? 
The  debater  must  not  so  much  attempt  to  shift 
some  purely  technical  burden  of  proof,  as  the  real 
burden  of  doubt  in  the  mind  of  the  hearers.  It  is 
to  be  remembered,  too,  that  you  cannot  shift  to  an 
opponent  what  properly  belongs  to  you — a  thing 
that  amateur  debaters  often  attempt.  The  burden 
of  proof  is  the  proof  that  either  side  must  assume, 
and  is  willing  to  assume,  in  order  to  establish  the 
case;  it  represents  the  demand  of  the  hearers: 
"Prove  your  case,  if  we  are  to  believe  it." 

The  amount  of  attention  that  each  of  these  steps 
in  analysis  may  require,  when  applied  to  a  given 
question,  will  of  course  depend  upon  the  form  and 
nature  of  the  proposition.  In  the  finished  argu- 
ment the  steps  may  be  interwoven,  but  the  student 
should  train  himself  in  taking  these  steps  seriatim 
in  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  a  given  question, 
for  by  such  an  approach  only  can  one  reach  the  de- 
sired clearness,  pointedness,  and  emphasis  in  the 
argument  as  a  whole. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION  6 1 

EXERCISES 

1.  Assign   members   of   the   class   questions   of   current   discus- 
sion, and  let  each  student  bring  in  at  the  next  meeting  a  written 
statement  of    (a)    why  the   subject   is  one  of   public   discussion, 
(b)    the   state   of   the   discussion    at   the    present   time,    and    (c) 
the  opinions  held  by  each  side. 

2.  Point  out  how  much  definition  is  necessary  in  the  following 
questions : 

(a)  Association  football  is  preferable  to  the  Rugby  game. 

(b)  Trusts   should  be   suppressed. 

(c)  American    colleges    and    universities    should    adopt    the 

elective  system. 

3.  State  the  common  ground  in  the  following: 

(a)  The  honor  system  should  be  employed  in  the  examina- 
tions of  high  schools  and  colleges. 

(b)  Negroes  should  neither  be  enlisted  nor  commissioned  in 

the  United  States  regular  army. 

(c)  Any    further    centralization    of    power    in    the    Federal 

Government  should  be  opposed  by  all  citizens. 

4.  On  the  basis  of  the  interests  involved,  determine  the  main 
issues  in: 

(a)  Fraternities  should  not  be  allowed  in  this  institution. 
(b}   The  faculty  of  this  institution  should  have  the  right  of 

censorship  of  student  publications. 

(c)   The  publication  of  cartoons  of  public  men  should  not  be 
permitted. 

5.  Where  does  the  burden  of  proof  lie  in  the  following  ques- 
tions, and  why? 

(«)   Aaron  Burr  was  guilty  of  treason. 

(b)  The    United    States    Government    should    have    general 

charge  of  interstate  railway  passenger  rates. 

(c)  The    San    Francisco    school    board    was   justified    in    its 

action  relative  to  the  segregation  of  Japanese  pupils. 

6.  Let  each  member  of  the  class  analyze  an  assigned  question 
for   debate    (see   Appendix),    the   results   to   be   given   in   either 
oral  or  written  reports  at  the  next  exercise. 


CHAPTER  III 

PROOF 

Having  analyzed  the  question  and  so  gotten  an 
idea  of  the  work  to  be  done,  the  debater  is  now 
ready  to  proceed  to  his  proof,  or  argument  proper. 
It  is  the  purpose  of  this  chapter  to  deal  with  proof 
only  in  its  broad  outlines;  more  detailed  features 
of  the  same  general  subject  will  be  considered  in 
succeeding  chapters. 

What  is  Proof?  Proof  has  been  defined  as 
consisting  of  "any  effort,  process,  or  operation  de- 
signed to  discover  a  fact  or  truth";1  "anything 
which  serves,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  convince  the 
mind  of  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  a  fact  or  propo- 
sition."2 "Evidence  is  anything  which  generates 
proof."3  That  is,  proof  is  the  effect,  or  result,  of 
evidence;  evidence  is  the  medium  of  proof.  Evi- 
dence is  the  raw  material,  proof  the  finished  pro- 
duct. And  argument,  it  might  be  added,  is  the 
machinery  wherewith  evidence  is  manufactured 
into  proof. 

1  Webster.  2Best  on  Evidence,  p.  5.  z  Idem. 

(62) 


PROOF  63 

Proof  vs.  Assertion. — Taking  a  lesson  from  the 
ordinary  methods  of  the  amateur  debater,  a  prin- 
ciple that  needs  emphasizing  is,  asserting  is  not 
debating.  Real  debating  requires  that  every  as- 
sertion material  to  a  question  must  be  supported 
by  proof.  To  reason  is  to  state  relevant  facts  or 
experiences,  and  to  draw  inferences  from  these 
facts  and  experiences,  in  support  of  a  propo- 
sition. The  statement  of  a  matter  as  a  fact,  or  of 
a  belief  as  a  truth,  without  stating  the  reasons  on 
which  the  conclusion  is  based,  is  mere  assertiveness. 
Not  amateur  debaters  alone  need  to  be  on  their 
guard  against  assertiveness — the  fault  is  also  il- 
lustrated, as  has  previously  been  suggested,  in  the 
dogmatism  of  the  preacher  or  teacher,  and  gener- 
ally in  the  bigotry  of  persons  in  all  walks  of  life 
when  called  upon  to  present  some  evidence  of  the 
truth  of  their  assertions.  If  a  man  says  that  he 
knows  a  thing  or  believes  a  thing,  he  must  show 
how  he  knows  it  or  why  he  believes  it.  A  minister 
once  came  to  Jeremiah  Mason,  the  famous  trial 
lawyer  and  said :  "Mr.  Mason,  I  have  seen  an  angel 
from  heaven  who  told  me  that  your  client  was  inno- 
cent." "Yes,"  replied  Mason,  "and  did  he  tell 
you  how  to  prove  it?" 

"How  can  I  prove  it?"  is  the  constantly  recur- 
ring question  in  debate.  As  a  preliminary  to  the 
search  for  proof  the  student  should  first  of  all  sub- 


64  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

ject  himself  to  a  severe  self-scrutiny,  and  note  what 
clearly  defined  opinions  he  already  has  on  the  sub- 
ject under  discussion;  what  opinions  are  based 
upon  personal  knowledge,  or  upon  experience  or 
evidence  of  some  sort  that  he  can  lay  his  hands  on; 
and  what  opinions  rest  on  vague  impressions,  early 
teaching,  and  prejudice,  or  upon  the  desire  that 
this  or  that  side  of  the  question  may  be  true.  By 
such  a  preliminary  examination  of  the  content  of 
his  own  mind  he  will  clear  the  approach  to 
the  proof  of  a  great  deal  of  rubbish,  and  will  clear 
his  mind  for  action*  This  process  of  excluding 
impressions  and  prejudices,  as  a  question  is  taken 
up  for  debate,  is  not  always  easy.  "The  best 
minds,"  says  Victor  Hugo,  in  his  "Les  Miser- 
cables,"  "have  their  fetishes,  and  at  times  feel 
vaguely  wounded  by  any  respect  on  the  part  of 
logic."  "It  is  no  proof  of  a  man's  understand- 
ing," says  Emerson,  "to  be  able  to  confirm  what- 
ever he  pleases."  It  is  not  only  no  proof  of  his 
understanding,  it  is  no  compliment  to  his  intelli- 
gence. 

Assumptions. — An  exception  to  the  rule  that  in 
argument  every  material  assertion  must  be  sup- 
ported by  proof  is  found  in  the  legitimate  use  of 
assumptions.  An  assumption  is  the  provisional  or 
absolute  acceptance  of  a  certain  truth  without  ref- 


PROOF  65 

erence  to  proof — taking  a  thing  for  granted.  The 
provisional  acceptance  of  an  alleged  truth  is  a 
method  of  reasoning  largely  used  in  scientific  in- 
vestigation. The  method  consists  of  either  of  two 
processes,  known  as  deduction  and  induction.  In 
deduction  a  general  law  or  hypothesis  is  first  as- 
sumed, and  then  all  instances  or  phenomena  are 
brought  within  this  general  law;  and  the  inverse 
method,  or  induction,  which  proceeds  from  par- 
ticulars to  the  general  law,  assumes  that  all  in- 
stances are  like  those  examined.  In  mathematics 
an  assumption  is  called  an  axiom;  in  practical  af- 
fairs, a  maxim.  The  ordinary  proverb  is  simply 
the  expression  of  the  common  experience  or  com- 
mon knowledge  of  mankind.  In  one  of  his  ad- 
dresses, President  David  Starr  Jordan  says :  "We 
know  that  if  the  youth  fall  not  the  man  will  stand. 
I  shall  not  argue  this  question.  I  assume  it  as  a 
fact  of  experience,  and  it  is  this  fact  which  gives 
our  public  school  system  the  right  to  exist."4  In 
this  instance  a  common  proverb — "As  the  twig  is 
bent  the  tree  is  inclined" — is  used  as  the  basis  for 
the  support  of  our  system  of  public  schools.  And, 
generally,  in  every-day  discussions  assumptions  are 
the  ultimate  basis  of  much  reasoning.  The  point 
to  be  guarded  against  is  that  nothing  be  assumed 

*  "Care  and  Culture  of  Men,"  p.  84. 


66  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

unless  it  is  generally  accepted  as  true.  That  is, 
whenever  an  assumption  has  any  argumentative 
force,  it  must  itself  rest  on  the  assumption  of  gen- 
eral acceptance  without  the  necessity  for  proof. 
The  force  of  the  argument  from  authority  (later 
considered)  rests  on  the  assumption  that  the  au- 
thority quoted  will  be  accepted  as  authoritative. 

Assumptions,  then,  are  widely  serviceable  as  a 
basis  for  much  argument.  It  will  be  seen,  how- 
ever, that  they  readily  shade  off  into  presumptions. 
An  assumption  may  vary  in  force  from  the  cer- 
tainty of  a  self-evident  proposition  to  a  mere  guess. 
And  the  test  of  its  argumentative  force,  it  should 
be  remembered,  is  its  effect  on  the  mind  of  a  hearer. 
The  moment  that  the  truth  of  an  assumption  is 
questioned,  proof  to  support  it  becomes  necessary. 

Varying  Degrees  of  Possible  Proof. — In  com- 
mon usuage  proof  means  the  establishment  of  a 
greater  or  less  probability  as  to  the  truth  of  a  given 
proposition.  When  we  argue  current  political  or 
economic  questions,  our  proof  must  always  fall 
short  of  mathematical  demonstration;  the  very 
fact  that  such  questions  are  in  dispute  implies  that 
they  cannot  be  settled  by  syllogisms.  Outside  of 
mathematics  and  logic,  then,  and  from  the  view- 
point of  ordinary  debate,  we  may  properly  speak 
of  degrees  of  proof.  The  degree,  of  conclusive- 


PROOF  67 

ness  that  may  be  reached  in  an  argument  will  de- 
pend upon  the  nature  of  the  question.  Proof  or 
disproof  may  vary  from  practically  absolute  con- 
clusiveness  to  a  mere  presumption  of  truth.  A  gen- 
eral presumption,  for  example,  is  all  that  could  be 
expected  in  the  discussion  of  such  a  question  as, 
"Is  the  World  Growing  Better?"  In  his  argu- 
ment of  this  question,  previously  referred  to,  Dr. 
Van  Dyke  says: 

Of  course,  when  we  consider  a  question  like  this, 
before  even  a  modest  guess  at  the  answer  is  possible,  we 
must  be  willing  to  take  a  long  view  and  a  wide  view. 
The  world,  like  the  individual  man,  has  its  moods  and  its 
vagaries,  its  cold  fits  and  its  hot  fits,  its  backslidings  and 
its  repentances,  its  reactions  and  its  revivals.  An  ad- 
vance made  in  one  century  may  be  partly  lost  in  the  next, 
and  regained  with  interest  in  a  later  century.  One  na- 
tion may  be  degenerating,  under  local  infections  of  evil, 
while  others  are  improving.  There  may  be  years,  or  re- 
gions, of  short  harvest  in  the  field  of  morals,  just  as  there 
are  in  the  cotton-field  or  the  cornfield.  The  same  general 
conditions  that  work  well  for  the  development  of  most 
men,  may  prove  unfavorable  to  certain  races.  Civiliza- 
tion seems  to  oppress  and  demoralize  some  tribes  to  the 
point  of  extinction.  Liberty  is  a  tonic  too  strong  for  cer- 
tain temperaments;  it  intoxicates  them.  But  what  we 
have  to  look  at  is  not  the  local  exception,  nor  the  tem- 
porary reaction ;  it  is  the  broad  field  as  far  as  we  can  see 
it,  the  general  movement  as  far  as  we  can  trace  it.  And 
here  I  make  my  sober  guess  that  the  world  is  really  grow- 
ing better:  not  in  every  eddy,  but  in  the  main  current  of 


68  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF   DEBATE 

its  life ;  not  in  a  straight  line,  but  with  a  winding  course ; 
not  in  every  respect,  but  in  at  least  two  of  the  three  main 
points  of  goodness  [justice,  kindness,  and  self-restraint]  ; 
not  swiftly,  but  slowly,  surely,  really  growing  better. 

As  determining  the  degree  of  possible  proof, 
two  classes  of  questions  for  debate  may  be  consid- 
ered. These  are :  ( i )  Questions  of  Fact,  wherein 
the  argument  mainly  rests  on  past  experiences  'or 
present  conditions;  and  (2)  Questions  of  Policy, 
wherein  the  truth  of  the  proposition  must  be  tested, 
at  least  in  part,  by  future  experiences. 

i.  "A  fact  is  a  past  happening  or  present  con- 
dition." In  a  question  of  fact,  then,  something  has 
happened,  or  exists;  the  process  of  proof  consists 
in  showing  what  that  something  is.  Such  questions 
are  therefore  capable  of  a  greater  degree  of  ap- 
proximation to  absolute  conclusiveness  of  proof 
than  is  possible  in  questions  of  policy.  Now,  in 
questions  of  fact  three  classes  of  facts  are  to  be 
dealt  with:  First,  those  facts  that  are  admitted  or 
conclusively  proved;  second,  the  facts  that  are  in 
doubt,  which  must  be  determined  from  the  evi- 
dence to  be  presented;  and,  third,  the  facts  that 
are  to  be  inferred  from  the  facts  that  are  admitted 
or  proved.  These  three  classes  of  facts  represent 
the  steps  in  the  proof  in  an  ordinary  trial  at  law. 
First,  there  is  the  statement  of  the  facts  in  the  case 
which  both  sides  admit — including  those  matters 


PROOF  69 

of  which  the  court  will  take  "judicial  notice";  sec- 
ondly, the  proof  of  facts  in  issue;  and,  thirdly,  the 
conclusions  of  fact  drawn  by  the  verdict  of  the 
jury,  which  records  those  facts  proven  by  either  "a 
fair  preponderance  of  evidence"  or  "beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt,"  as  the  case  may  be.  And  so  in 
debate  generally.  For  example,  take  the  question, 
uWas  Admiral  Schley  guilty  of  the  charges 
brought  against  him?"  (i)  Facts  admitted:  Ad- 
miral Sampson  was  in  nominal  command,  and  cer- 
tain facts  as  to  coaling,  maneuvering,  etc.  (2) 
Matters  for  proof:  (a)  Whether  or  not  Admiral 
Schley  did  his  utmost  to  capture  or  destroy  the 
Colon  on  May  31,  1898;  (b)  whether  or  not  his 
official  reports  regarding  the  coaling  facilities  of 
the  Flying  Squadron  were  inaccurate  and  mislead- 
ing; (c)  whether  or  not  he  did  an  injustice  to 
Lieutenant-Commander  Hodgson  by  publishing  a 
garbled  version  of  the  correspondence  that  passed 
between  them.  (3)  Facts  for  inference:  Conclu- 
sions from  the  proof  presented  as  to  (#),  (&), 
and  (c). 

2.  In  questions  of  policy  the  proof  relates  not 
to  what  has  happened,  but  to  what  should  hap- 
pen. But  while  the  conclusion  to  be  reached  looks 
toward  the  future,  the  argument  must  almost  al- 
ways be  grounded  on  facts.  Take,  for  example, 
the  question  of  government  ownership  of  railroads 


7<3  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

in  the  United  States.  The  usual  line  of  proof  would 
be :  ( i )  The  existing  evils  in  railway  management 
demand  correction;  (2)  government  ownership  has 
proved  beneficial  in  other  countries;  and  (3)  it 
would  prove  beneficial  in  this  country.  Or,  again, 
questions  of  policy  can  usually  be  reduced  to  these 
two  issues :  ( i )  Would  the  adoption  of  the  plan 
proposed  be  to  our  interest?  (2)  Would  it  be  in 
accord  with  principle?  These  are  the  two  main 
issues  in  the  argument  of  such  questions,  for  ex- 
ample, as  the  permanent  retention  of  the  Philip- 
pine Islands  or  the  annexation  of  Cuba — (i)  Will 
it  pay?  and  (2)  is  it  right?  And  if  it  can  be 
shown  that  interest  and  principle  coincide,  a  strong 
argument  results. 

But  in  all  questions  of  policy,  it  will  be  readily 
seen,  absolute  proof  or  disproof  is  impossible. 
And  the  test  is :  Has  the  advocate  of  this  policy 
made  out  such  a  case  that  a  reasonable  man  should 
act  on  it?  The  test  proceeds  on  the  principle  that 
that  proof  which  convinces  an  honest  seeker  of  the 
truth  should  convince  an  honest  hearer.  No  re- 
form— political,  social,  humanitarian,  or  relig- 
ious— can  be  proposed  against  which  valid  objec- 
tions cannot  be  urged.  The  test  is:  Do  such  ob- 
jections outweigh  the  proved  advantages? 


PROOF  7! 

EXERCISES 

1.  How  much  does  prejudice  or  early  training  enter  into  your 
answers  to  the  following   questions,   and   what   proof   have  you 
to  offer  to  sustain  your  answers? 

(a)  To  what  political  party  do  you  belong? 

(b)  What  church  do  you   favor? 

(c)  Do  you  approve  of  the  present  game  of  college  football? 

(d)  What  is  the  best  government  on  earth? 

(e)  What  is  the  best  country  in  which  to  live?     The  best 

State  of  the  United  States?     The  best  town? 

2.  What  is  the  proposition  for  proof  in  the  following  speech? 
Is  the  proposition  proved?     If  not,  why  not? 

"If  there  be  any  in  this  assembly,  any  dear  friend  of  Caesar's, 
to  him  I  say  that,  Brutus'  love  to  Caesar  was  no  less  than  his. 
If  then  that  friend  demand  why  Brutus  rose  against  Caesar, 
this  is  my  answer: — Not  that  I  lov'd  Caesar  less,  but  that  I 
lov'd  Rome  more.  Had  you  rather  Caesar  were  living,  and 
die  all  slaves,  than  that  Caesar  were  dead,  to  live  all  free  men? 
As  Caesar  lov'd  me,  I  weep  for  him ;  as  he  was  fortunate, 
I  rejoice  at  it;  as  he  was  valiant,  I  honor  him;  but,  as  he 
was  ambitious,  I  slew  him.  There  is  tears  for  his  love;  joy 
for  his  fortune;  honor  for  his  valor;  and  death  for  his  am- 
bition. Who  is  here  so  base  that  would  be  a  bondman?  If 
any,  speak;  for  him  have  I  offended.  Who  is  here  so  rude 
that  would  not  be  a  Roman?  If  any,  speak;  for  him  have  I 
offended.  Who  is  here  so  vile  that  will  not  love  his  country? 
If  any,  speak ;  for  him  have  I  offended." 

3.  Give  examples  of  deductive  and  inductive  reasoning. 

4.  In  the  following  propositions,  determine  those  which  might 
properly  be  used  as  assumptions  in  the  course  of  an  argument, 
those  which   are  only  presumptions,   and   those  which   are  mere 
assertions : 

(a)  A  rolling  stone  gathers  no  moss. 

(b)  Every  cloud  has  a  silver  lining. 

(c)  Honesty  is  the  best  policy. 

(d)  You   should    decide  this   question,   not   on   the  basis   of 

your  individual  interest  alone,  but  on  the  basic  prin- 
ciple of  "the  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number." 

(e)  A   law   may   be   a   good    law   for    a    given   community, 

though  a  bad  law  for  individuals  in  the  community. 
(/)  The  Bible  is  the  inspired  word  of  God. 


72  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

(g )  Roosevelt  is  an  honest  man. 

(h)  The  Czar  of  Russia  is  a  weak  man. 

(i)    Government  in  the  United  States  is  tending  to  become  « 

unduly  centralized. 

5.  Determine  the  degree  of  possible  proof  in  each  of  the  fol- 
lowing questions: 

(a)  Men   are  growing  more  humane. 

(b]  People   living  in   southern   latitudes   are  more  cruel   to 

dumb  animals  than  those  living  in  the  north.  , 

(c)   According    to    non-Euclidian    geometry,    two    parallel 
lines  may  meet. 

(d)  The  earth  revolves  about  the  sun. 

(e)  Aaron  Burr  was  chiefly  at  fault  in  causing  the  duel  be- 

tween   himself    and    Alexander    Hamilton. 
(/)   Japanese  coolies  should  not  be  allowed  to  immigrate  to  ' 
the  United  States. 


CHAPTER  IV 

EVIDENCE 

Facts  and  Evidence. — The  establishment  of 
facts,  and  the  inferences  therefrom,  are  the  basis 
of  all  processes  of  reasoning.  A  single  fact  is  fre- 
^uently  more  convincing  than  a  long  array  of 
theories  and  generalizations.  "A  popular  as- 
sembly," says  Emerson,  "like  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, or  the  French  Chamber,  or  the  American 
Congress,  is  commanded  by  these  two  powers — 
first  by  a  fact,  then  by  skill  of  statement." 

Facts  are  established  by  various  kinds  of  evi- 
dence. In  law,  the  trier  of  facts — the  court  or 
juryman — gets  the  facts  by  one  of  four  ways :  ( i ) 
To  a  limited  extent,  from  his  own  knowledge,  that 
is,  those  facts  which  everybody  ought  to  know,  and 
including  matters  of  which  the  court  takes  "ju- 
dicial notice";  (2)  by  actually  seeing  the  thing  in 
question — as,  a  broken  limb  or  a  chattel — the  res 
ipse,  or  thing  itself — "real  evidence";  (3)  by  oral 
or  documentary  evidence  on  the  matter  in  suit; 
and  (4)  by  a  process  of  reasoning  from  facts 
closely  related  to  the  facts  in  issue  to  a  conclusion 
regarding  such  facts,  and  if  the  conclusion  is  such 

1   (73) 


74  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

that  an  ordinary  man  would  ordinarily  draw,  it  is 
a  "presumption  of  fact."  • 

The  debater  gets  his  facts  from  his  own  knowl- 
edge of  the  matters  in  question,  from  talking  with 
others  who  are  qualified  to  speak,  and  yet  more 
from  "documentary"  evidence, — official  publi<^- 
tions,  books,  periodicals,  and  newspapers, — and 
from  the  facts  so  gathered  he  reaches,  by  a  process 
of  reasoning,  certain  conclusions  as  to  facts  in  dis- 
pute. • 

In  legal  procedure  a  large  number  of  principles 
and  rules  relative  to  the  value  and  admissibility  of 
various  kinds  of  evidence  have  been  formulated 
in  a  code  of  practice.  The  debater  is  bound  by 
no  such  rules ;  and  yet,  since  these  rules  of  law  are 
based  on  the  common  judgment  of  mankind,  the 
debater  should  be  slow  to  use  what  a  court  of  law 
would  reject.  In  the  search  for  evidence  of  dis- 
puted facts,  then,  it  becomes  necessary  for  the  de- 
bater to  test  the  evidence  as  to  its  strength  or  weak- 
ness. Following  are  some  of  the  principal  tests 
that  apply  to  argumentation  generally. 

There  are  three  tests  as  to  the  evidence  itself: 
( i )  It  should  be  consistent  with  ordinary  human 
experience;  (2)  it  should  be  consistent  with  the 
other  known  facts  in  the  case;  and  (3)  it  should 
be  consistent  with  itself.  There  are  three  tests 
of  evidence  as  to  its  sources :  ( i )  Does  the  witness 


EVIDENCE  75 

speak  from  personal  knowledge?  (2)  Is  he  un- 
prejudiced? (3)  What  is  his  reputation  for  intel- 
ligence and  truthfulness?  Again,  there  are  three 
kinds  of  evidence  which  are  from  their  very  nature 
trustworthy :  ( i )  Undesigned  testimony ;  ( 2 ) 

negative  testimony;  and  (3)   concessions. 

• 

TESTS  OF  EVIDENCE  AS  TO  ITS  NATURE 

i.  Evidence  should  be  consistent  with  ordinary 
human  experience. — People  are  slow  to  believe 
anything  that  fails  to  tally  with  human  nature  and 
experience.  Is  an  allegation  true,  on  the  face  of 
it?  is  a  test  question  constantly  applied.  Is  it 
reasonable?  Is  it  in  accord  with  common  sense? 
Is  it  consistent  with  the  natural  coutse  of  affairs? 
This  is  one  of  the  tests  that  the  trial  lawyer,  both 
in  cross-examination  and  in  the  closing  argument, 
is  frequently  called  upon  to  apply.  In  the  cele- 
brated case  of  Rex  vs.  Forbes,  for  example,  one 
Dr.  McNamara  testified  that  he  saw  the  defend- 
ant hurl  a  bottle  at  the  Lord-Lieutenant  of  Ire- 
land from  the  upper  gallery  of  a  theater.  The  de- 
fendant's attorney,  John  Henry  North,  attacked 
this  testimony  as  follows: 

The  Doctor  in  the  middle  gallery  sees  Handwich  in 
the  third  row  of  the  upper  one,  though  between  them 
there  were  two  benches  covered  with  people,  and  the 


76  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

boarded  parapet  in  front  of  the  upper .  gallery  besides ! 
Through  all  these  obstacles  he  sees  him  in  that  dark  corner 
of  the  gallery  where  he  represents  him  to  be  placed ;  sees 
him  fling  the  bottle,  and  is  now  able,  at  this  distance  of 
time,  to  identify  his  person.  The  bottle  itself  he  saw  in 
what  he  learnedly  calls  its  transit.  A  word  or  two  on 
that  same  transit.  I  hold  it  physically  impossible  that  a 
bottle  could  have  taken  the  course  described  by  Farrell 
McNamara,  from  the  upper  gallery  to  the  stage, 
without  being  observed  by  four  or  five  hundred  spectators. 
Just  think  what  the  theater  is:  a  wide,  illuminated  area, 
whose  bounding  surfaces  are  studded  with  eyes  as  numer- 
ous as  those  of  Argus.  Not  a  square  inch  in  that  field  of 
view  which  was  not  painted  on  the  retina  of  some  one 
eye  or  other  in  that  vast  assembly.  Consider,  too,  the 
time — the  interval  between  the  play  and  farce — when 
the  attention  of  the  audience  was  not  fixed  upon  the  stage, 
when  people  were  all  looking  about  them,  recognizing 
and  greeting  their  friends  and  acquaintances.  Was  there 
no  one  to  mark  this  bottle  but  Farrell  McNamara,  and 
the  young  medical  student?  What,  not  one  giggling  girl 
in  the  boxes,  glancing  around  for  admiration!  not  an 
opera-glass  pointed !  no  fortunate  observer  of  the  transit 
but  the  astronomer  from  Ballinakill!  Is  all  this  credible? 
But  this  is  not  all — "voonders  upon  voonders,"  as  the 
Dutchman  said  when  he  got  to  London — the  greatest 
miracle  is  to  come.  Down  comes  the  bottle,  thundering 
from  the  upper  gallery  to  the  stage,  and  falls  unbroken!1 

2.  Evidence  should  be  consistent  with  the  other 
known  facts  in  the  case. — Any  evidence  that  varies 

1  "Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  p.  659. 


EVIDENCE  77 

materially  from  facts  already  proved  or  gener- 
ally accepted  is  at  once  open  to  suspicion,  and  is 
ordinarily  discredited.  The  evidence  as  a  whole 
must  hang  together.  Evidence  at  variance  with  a 
clearly  established  fact  is  worthless.  It  is  told  of 
Lincoln  that  in  a  certain  case  he  elicited  from  a 
witness,  in  considerable  detail,  testimony  of  things 
seen  by  the  aid  of  the  moonlight  on  a  certain  night. 
An  almanac  was  then  introduced  to  show  that 
there  was  no  moon  on  the  night  in  question. 
Again,  Webster  applied  this  test  in  the  following 
comment  on  the  testimony  of  a  witness  in  the  trial 
of  Frank  Knapp: 

Balch  says,  that  on  the  evening,  whenever  it  was,  he 
saw  the  prisoner;  the  prisoner  told  him  he  was  going  out 
of  town  on  horseback,  for  a  distance  of  about  twenty 
minutes'  drive,  and  that  he  was  going  to  get  a  horse  at 
Osborn's.  This  was  about  seven  o'clock.  At  about  nine, 
Balch  says,  he  saw  the  prisoner  again,  and  was  then  told 
by  him  that  he  had  had  his  ride,  and  had  returned.  Now 
it  appears  by  Osborn's  books  that  the  prisoner  had  a 
saddle-horse  from  his  stable,  not  on  Tuesday  evening,  the 
night  of  the  murder,  but  on  the  Saturday  evening  previous. 
This  fixes  the  time  about  which  these  young  men  testify, 
and  is  a  complete  answer  and  refutation  of  the  attempted 
alibi  on  Tuesday  evening. 

In  practical  life  the  danger  of  this  test  of  con- 
sistency lies  in  accepting  as  absolutely  true  what 


78  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

is  generally  accepted  as  true.  Many  so-called  facts 
or  truths  have  been  proven,  as  we  know,  "hoary 
errors."  And  the  same  will  doubtless  prove  true 
of  many  principles  and  maxims  which  are  to-day 
generally  accepted  as  axiomatic.  The  process  of 
progress  in  science,  sociology,  or  politics  is  the 
abandonment  of  generally  accepted  theories,  re- 
sulting from  the  discovery  of  new  truths. 

3.  Evidence  should  be  consistent  with  itself. — 
This  test,  it  will  be  seen,  is  practically  the  same  as 
the  preceding,  except  that  it  has  a  narrower  appli- 
cation. Is  the  evidence  credible,  regardless  of 
its  comparison  with  other  known  facts  ?  Does  it  in 
itself  hang  together?  Is  it  self-consistent  or  self- 
contradictory?  In  a  trial  at  law,  it  is  not  infre- 
quently the  purpose  of  the  cross-examination  to 
bring  forth  contradictory  statements — to  lead  the 
witness  to  impeach  himself.  And  so  the  debater 
generally  must  be  constantly  on  his  guard  against 
inconsistencies  in  the  evidence  he  examines.  Ma- 
caulay,  for  example,  in  his  review  of  Croker's  edi- 
tion of  "Boswell's  Johnson,"  points  out  the  follow- 
ing contradictions  on  the  part  of  the  editor: 

Mr.  Croker  tells  us  in  a  note  that  Derrick,  who  was 
master  of  the  ceremonies  at  Bath,  died  very  poor  in  1760. 
We  read  on ;  and,  a  few  pages  later,  we  find  Dr.  John- 
son and  Boswell  talking  of  this  same  Derrick  as  still  liv- 


EVIDENCE  79 

ing  and  reigning,  as  having  retrieved  his  character,  as 
possessing  so  much  power  over  his  subjects  at  Bath  that 
his  opposition  might  be  fatal  to  Sheridan's  lectures  on 
oratory.  And  all  this  in  1763.  The  fact  is,  that  Derrick 
died  in  1769.  ...  In  one  note  we  read  that  Sir  Herbert 
Croft  .  .  .  died  in  1805.  Another  note  in  the  same 
volume  states  that  this  same  Herbert  Croft  died  ...  on 
the  27th  of  April,  1816. 

TESTS  OF  EVIDENCE  AS  TO  ITS  SOURCES 

i.  Does  the  witness  speak  from  personal  knowl- 
edge?— In  seeking  evidence  on  a  fact  in  dispute, 
the  evidence  should  be  adduced  from  original 
sources,  whenever  possible.  Second-hand  knowl- 
edge is  relatively  weak.  Hence  the  general  rule  in 
law  that  "hearsay"  evidence  is  inadmissible;  uits 
intrinsic  weakness,"  says  Greenleaf,  uits  incompe- 
tency  to  satisfy  the  mind  as  to  the  existence  of  the 
fact,  and  the  frauds  that  may  be  practiced  under 
its  cover,  combine  to  support  the  rule."  In  argu- 
mentation generally,  the  farther  the  evidence  of  a 
fact  in  question  is  removed  from  the  personal 
knowledge  of  a  witness,  the  weaker  the  evidence 
becomes.  Thus,  in  questions  of  governmental  ad- 
ministration official  publications  are  far  more 
trustworthy  than  newspaper  reports.  If  one  were 
arguing  the  question,  "Should  Cuba  be  annexed  to 
the  United  States?"  and  the  question  arose  as  to 


8o  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

the  desire  of  the  inhabitants  of  Cuba  regarding 
annexation,  such  desire  could  best  be  shown,  not 
by  the  reports  of  travelers  in  the  island,  or  by  the 
reports  of  our  consuls  there,  but  by  the  statements 
of  representative  Cubans  themselves.  So,  on  the 
question  of  the  incorporation  of  labor  unions,  the 
willingness  of  the  unions  to  be  incorporated  must 
be  proved,  not  by  the  testimony  of  an  economist  or 
a  government  official,  but  by  the  statements  and 
actions  of  the  labor  leaders  themselves.  In  the 
search  for  evidence,  then,  first-hand  statements  are 
first  to  be  sought.  The  debater  must  ask  himself, 
Is  this  the  best  available  testimony  that  can  be  ad- 
duced? 

2.  Is  the  witness  unprejudiced? — Just  as  an  ad- 
mission against  one's  interest  is  considered  inher- 
ently strong,  so  evidence  that  shows  bias,  from 
whatever  motive,  is  inherently  weak.  Not  that 
an  interested  witness  may  not  tell  the  truth,  but  his 
evidence  is  apt  to  be  viewed  with  more  suspicion 
than  the  testimony  of  one  who  has  no  motive  for 
desiring  that  this  or  that  side  of  a  disputed  fact 
may  be  true.  When  we  consider  the  fallibility  of 
human  testimony  at  its  best,  due  to  lack  of  accurate 
observation  and  memory,  it  is  no  wonder  that  the 
testimony  of  a  prejudiced  witness  should  be  viewed 
with  suspicion.  The  most  honest  of  men  are  apt 


EVIDENCE  8 1 

to  see  events  as  they  hope  to  see  them.  A  striking 
illustration  of  this  is  found  in  the  conflicting  re- 
ports of  the  Spanish  and  American  commissions 
that  investigated  the  cause  of  the  destruction  of 
the  battleship  Maine.  With  the  same  facts  be- 
fore them,  the  two  commissions  reached  conclu- 
sions diametrically  opposed  to  each  other.  So,  ex- 
pert testimony  in  trials  at  law  is  nowadays  apt  to 
be  discredited,  since  the  expert  usually  has  either 
a  financial  or  professional  interest  in  the  outcome. 

3.  Is  the  witness  intelligent  and  truthful? — 
This  test,  so  common  in  legal  trials  and  in  every- 
day life,  is  of  course  to  a  greater  or  less  degree  in- 
volved in  the. other  tests  of  evidence.  Intelligence 
and  truthfulness  are  always  essentials  for  reliabil- 
ity. Has  a  witness  the  mental  power  to  observe 
accurately,  remember  truly,  and  report  intelli- 
gently? And  what  is  his  general  reputation  for 
truthfulness?  An  unfavorable  answer  to  any  of 
these  questions  discredits  the  testimony.  Many  an 
interesting  ghost  story  has  been  found  to  rest  on 
nothing  except  weakness  of  sight,  or  hearing,  or 
touch.  Many  a  railroad  accident  has  been  due  to 
a  color-blind  engineer  or  switchman.  Not  only 
must  a  witness  have  good  mental  and  sensorial  fac- 
ulties, he  must  also  show  trustworthiness.  Our  be- 
lief in  human  testimony  rests  on  the  general  pre- 
6 


82  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

sumption  that  a  witness  is  not  only  able,  but  is  also 
willing,  to  tell  the  truth.  As  we  have  seen,  his 
willingness  to  tell  the  truth  may  be  affected,  in  a 
given  case,  by  his  interests  or  prejudices ;  but  there 
is  also  the  "natural-born  liar."  And  if  one  has  a 
general  reputation  for  untruthfulness,  his  testi- 
mony is  of  little  or  no  value.  The  ordinary  trial 
at  law  shows  witnesses  so  at  variance  that  it  is  fre- 
quently no  small  part  of  the  lawyer's  work  to 
demonstrate  who  is  telling  the  truth.  Thus,  in  the 
Dalton  divorce  case,  Rufus  Choate  attacks  the  tes- 
timony of  one  of  the  leading  witnesses  for  the 
plaintiff  as  follows: 

I  begin,  therefore,  with  the  foundation  witness  in  this 
case,  John  H.  Coburn,  and  I  respectfully  submit  to  you, 
that  tried  by  every  test  of  credibility  which  the  law 
recognizes,  on  your  oaths  you  are  bound  to  disbelieve  him. 
It  is  not  that  a  laugh  can  be  raised  against  Coburn  or 
his  testimony — that  is  nothing;  it  is  that,  according  to 
those  tests  which  are  founded  on  the  longest  and  widest 
experience  the  law  deems  satisfactory  to  show  whether  a 
jury  can  safely  believe  or  not,  he  is  not  to  be  believed. 
I  submit,  then,  that  John  H.  Coburn  is  not  an  honest 
man,  and  is  not,  therefore,  entitled  to  be  heard  in  so  deli- 
cate a  work  as  bringing  every  word  my  client  spoke  on 
that  evening  to  her  husband;  he  is  not  an  honest  man, 
and  I  put  it  on  your  solemn  oath  to  you,  that  there  is  not 
a  man  on  this  jury  who,  on  the  exhibition  of  John  H. 
Coburn,  would  intrust  him  to  carry  a  bundle  worth  five 
dollars  from  this  courthouse  to  the  depot.2 

2  "Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  pp.  307-311. 


EVIDENCE  83 

Again,  in  the  White  murder  trial  Webster  thus 
compared  the  claims  of  two  witnesses  to  veracity: 

These  two  witnesses,  Mr.  Colman  and  Phippen  Knapp, 
differ  entirely.  There  is  no  possibility  of  reconciling 
them.  No  charity  can  cover  both.  One  or  the  other  has 
sworn  falsely.  If  Phippen  Knapp  be  believed,  Mr.  Col- 
man's  testimony  must  be  wholly  disregarded.  It  is,  then, 
a  question  of  credit,  a  question  of  belief  between  the  two 
witnesses.  As  you  decide  between  these,  so  you  will  de- 
cide on  all  this  part  of  the  case. 

Mr.  Colman  has  given  you  a  plain  narrative,  a  con- 
sistent account,  and  has  uniformly  stated  the  same  things. 
He  is  not  contradicted,  except  by  the  testimony  of  Phippen 
Knapp.  He  is  influenced,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  by  no 
bias,  or  prejudice,  any  more  than  other  men,  except  so 
far  as  his  character  is  now  at  stake.  He  has  feelings  on 
this  point,  doubtless,  and  ought  to  have.  If  what  he  has 
stated  be  not  true,  I  cannot  see  any  ground  for  his  escape. 
If  he  be  a  true  man,  he  must  have  heard  what  he  testifies. 
No  treachery  of  memory  brings  to  memory  things  that 
never  took  place.  There  is  no  reconciling  his  evidence 
with  good  intention,  if  the  facts  in  it  are  not  as  he  states 
them.  He  is  on  trial  as  to  his  veracity. 

The  relation  in  which  the  other  witness  stands  deserves 
your  careful  consideration.  He  is  a  member  of  the 
family.  He  has  the  lives  of  two  brothers  depending,  as 
he  may  think,  on  the  effect  of  his  evidence;  depending  on 
every  word  he  speaks.  .  .  .  Compare  the  situation  of 
these  two  witnesses.  Do  you  not  see  mighty  motive 
enough  on  the  one  side,  and  want  of  all  motive  on  the 
other?  I  would  gladly  find  an  apology  for  that  witness, 
in  his  agonized  feelings,  in  his  distressed  situation;  in  the 


84  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

agitation  of  that  hour,  or  of  this.  I  would  gladly  impute 
it  to  error  or  to  want  of  recollection,  to  confusion  of 
mind  or  disturbance  of  feeling.  I  would  gladly  impute  to 
any  pardonable  source  that  which  cannot  be  reconciled  to 
facts  and  to  truth ;  but,  even  in  a  case  calling  for  so  much 
sympathy,  justice  must  yet  prevail,  and  we  must  come  to 
the  conclusion,  however  reluctantly,  which  that  demands 
from  .us. 

EVIDENCE  WHICH   IS  INHERENTLY  STRONG 

i.  Undesigned  Testimony. — By  undesigned  tes- 
timony is  meant  such  evidence  as  a  speaker  or 
writer  states  inadvertently  or  incidentally,  without 
any  thought  as  to  its  value  or  bearing  on  a  ques- 
tion in  dispute.  To  be  of  value,  however,  such  in- 
advertence must  not  amount  to  any  suspicion  of 
carelessness  or  inaccuracy.  In  the  absence  of  any 
such  suspicion,  undesigned  testimony,  having  be- 
hind it  no  motive  or  bias,  ordinarily  carries  with 
it  a  strong  presumption  of  its  truthfulness.  Web- 
ster also  makes  use  of  this  presumption  in  the 
White  murder  trial,  as  follows: 

Mr.  Southwick  swears  all  that  a  man  can  swear.  He 
has  the  best  means  of  judging  that  could  be  had  at  the 
time.  He  tells  you  that  he  left  his  father's  house  at  half- 
past  ten  o'clock,  and  as  he  passed  to  his  own  house  in 
Brown  Street  he  saw  a  man  sitting  on  the  steps  of  the 
rope-walk ;  that  he  passed  him  three  times,  and  each  time 
he  held  down  his  head,  so  that  he  did  not  see  his  face. 


EVIDENCE  85 

That  the  man  had  on  a  cloak,  which  was  not  wrapped 
around  him,  and  a  glazed  cap.  That  he  took  the  man  to 
be  Frank  Knapp  at  the  time;  that,  when  he  went  into 
his  house,  he  told  his  wife  that  he  thought  it  was  Frank 
Knapp;  that  he  knew  him  well,  having  known  him  from 
a  boy.  And  his  wife  swears  that  he  did  so  tell  her  when 
he  came  home.  What  could  mislead  this  witness  at  the 
time?  He  was  not  then  suspecting  Frank  Knapp  of  any- 
thing. He  could  not  then  be  influenced  by  any  prejudice. 
If  you  believe  that  the  witness  saw  Frank  Knapp  in  this 
position  at  this  time,  it  proves  the  case. 

2.  Negative  Testimony. — This  class  of  evi- 
dence, also  called  "the  testimony  of  silence,"  con- 
sists in  uthe  failure  of  a  witness  to  mention  a  fact 
so  striking  that  he  must  have  noticed  it  had  it  oc- 
curred." In  his  speech  on  "Conciliation"  Burke 
based  the  following  argument  on  negative  testi- 
mony: 

We  see  the  sense  of  the  Crown,  and  the  sense  of 
Parliament,  on  the  productive  nature  of  a  revenue  by 
grant.  Now  search  the  same  journals  for  the  produce  of 
the  revenue  by  imposition.  Where  is  it?  Let  us  know 
the  volume  and  the  page.  What  is  the  gross,  what  is  the 
net  produce  ?  To  what  service  is  it  applied  ?  How  have 
you  appropriated  its  surplus?  What,  can  none  of  the 
many  skillful  index-makers  that  we  are  now  employing 
find  any  trace  of  it?  Well,  let  them  and  that  rest 
together.  But  are  the  journals,  which  say  nothing  of  the 
revenue,  as  silent  on  the  discontent  ?  Oh,  no !  a  child  may 
find  it.  It  is  the  melancholy ,  burden  and  blot  of  every 
page. 


86  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

3.  Concessions. — By  concessions  in  this  con- 
nection is  meant  any  admissions  by  a  witness  that 
are  hostile  to  his  interests.  If  the  owner  of  a  line 
of  steamships  makes  statements  in  opposition  to 
ship  subsidies,  or  a  manufacturer  to  a  protective 
tariff,  this  would  be  taken  as  strong  evidence—- 
unless, of  course,  it  be  shown  that  in  some  way  the 
witness's  interests  are  not  really  opposed  to  his 
statements,  such  as  his  desire  to  destroy  a  com- 
peting rival  or  to  engage  in  a  new  business  not 
needing  protection.  In  the  following  argument, 
Senator  Albert  J.  Beveridge  shows  that  while  cor- 
porations having  to  do  with  interstate  commerce 
might  naturally  be  supposed  to  favor  "centraliza- 
tion" as  opposed  to  "States'  rights, "still  their  inter- 
ests sometimes  lie  in  favoring  the  latter  doctrine : 

Powerful  interests  which  exploit  the  people  and  the 
nation's  resources  can  more  easily  handle  a  smaller  por- 
tion of  the  American  people  for  their  purposes  than  they 
can  handle  the  entire  eighty  millions  of  the  people  for 
their  purposes.  And  if  they  are  defeated  in  one  State — 
one  small  subdivision  of  the  American  people — they 
always  have  forty-five  other  chances. 

This  analysis  reveals  the  heart  of  the  present  battle 
against  the  people's  instinctive  effort  toward  national 
unity.  Every  corporation,  so  great  that  its  business  is 
nation-wide,  is  championing  States'  rights.  Every  rail- 
road that  has  felt  the  regulating  hand  of  the  nation's  gov- 
ernment is  earnestly  for  States'  rights.  Every  trust  at- 
torney is  declaiming  about  "the  dangers  of  centraliza- 


EVIDENCE  87 

tion."  .  .  .  And  does  anybody  doubt  that  the  real  reason 
of  these  mighty  financial  interests  for  engineering  this 
twentieth  century  crusade  for  States'  rights  is  that  they 
believe  that  by  curbing  the  power  of  the  American  people 
expressed  through  the  people's  Congress  they  can  better 
protect  their  plans  for  financial  gain?3 

The  foregoing  are  some  of  the  tests  governing 
the  value  of  evidence  adduced  from  our  common 
experience  with  witnesses  of  all  kinds.  In  general 
debate  the  main  point  to  be  remembered  is,  that 
the  value  of  the  evidence  produced  should  be 
clearly  brought  out  in  the  course  of  the  argument. 
In  a  legal  trial,  a  lawyer  has  an  opportunity  of 
testing  evidence  by  the  examination  and  cross- 
examination  of  witnesses.  The  general  debater 
has  no  such  opportunity.  He  must  usually  present 
his  evidence  from  the  published  statements  of  the 
witnesses,  and  he  must  be  able  to  show  in  a  few 
words  why  the  evidence  is  to  be  believed,  to  point 
out  the  difference  between  second-hand  testimony, 
based  upon  mere  rumor  or  newspaper  gossip,  and 
that  derived  first-hand  from  capable  and  disinter- 
ested witnesses.  When  facts  are  in  dispute,  or 
when  the  setting  forth  of  the  facts  is  an  essential 
step  in  proof  of  a  proposition,  the  handling  of  evi- 
dence has  no  small  bearing  on  the  effectiveness  of 
an  argument. 

3  The  Reader  magazine   for   March,   1907. 


88  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 


EXERCISES. 

1.  Discuss  with  the  class  different  kinds  of  evidence  gathered 
by  the  students  from  current  magazines  and  newspapers. 

2.  Let  the  members  of  the  class  point  out  the  strength  or  weak- 
ness of  the  evidence  contained  in  the  following  extracts: 

(a)  "The  Republican  party  will  uphold  at  all  times  the  author- 
ity and  integrity  of  the  courts,  State  and  Federal,  and  will  ever 
insist  that  their  powers  to  enforce  their  process   and  to  protect 
life,    liberty    and    property    shall    be    preserved    inviolate.      We 
believe,    however,    that    the    rule    of    procedure    in    the    Federal 
courts   with    respect   to   the   issuance   of   the   writ   of   injunction 
should  be  more  accurately  defined  by  statute,  and  that  no  injunc- 
tion  or   temporary    restraining   order   should    be    issued    without 
notice,    except   irreparable    injury   would    result   from   delay,    in 
which    case    a    speedy    hearing    thereafter    should    be    granted." 
(From   the   Republican    national   platform    of   1908.) 

(b)  "The  courts  of  justice  are  the  bulwarks  of  our  liberties, 
and  we  yield  to  none  in  our  purpose  to  maintain  their  dignity. 
.  .  .  Experience   has   proved   the   necessity   of   a   modification   of 
the    present    law    relating   to    injunctions,    aod   we   reiterate   the 
pledge  of  our  national  platforms  of  1896  and  1904  in  favor  of 
the   measure   which    passed    the    United    States    Senate    in    1896, 
but    which    a    Republican    Congress    has    ever    since    refused    to 
enact,  relating  to  contempts  in  Federal  courts  and  providing  for 
trial  by  jury  in  cases  of  indirect  contempt."     (From  the  Demo- 
cratic national  platform  of  1908.) 

(c)  "First,  I   desire  to  state,  as  I   have  repeatedly  heretofore 
stated  to  the  Senate  and  to  the  country,  that  I  am  not  and  never 
have  been  a  polygamist.     I  have  never  had  but  one  wife,  and 
she  is  my  present  wife. 

"There  has  been  a  more  or  less  prevalent  opinion  that  the  doc- 
trine of  polygamy  was  obligatory  upon  the  members  of  the  Mor- 
mon Church,  whereas,  in  truth  and  fact,  no  such  obligatory  doc- 
trine has  ever  existed.  The  revelation  concerning  polygamy,  as 
originally  made,  and  as  always  interpreted,  is  permissible,  and 
not  mandatory.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  only  a  small  percentage 
of  the  adherents  of  that  faith  have  ever  been  polygamists.  The 
vast  majority  of  the  adult  members  of  the  Church,  from  its 
foundation  to  the  present  time,  have  been  monogamists.  ^ 

"The  Mormon  people,  however,  regarded  this  doctrine — al- 
though permissible  in  character — as  part  of  their  religious  faith, 
and  when  the  law  was  passed  denouncing  its  practice,  the  execu- 


EVIDENCE  89 

tion  of  the  law  was  resisted  on  the  ground  that  it  was  unconsti- 
tutional, as  being  an  interference  with  their  religious  liberty. 
Appeals  were  taken  to  the  highest  courts  of  the  land,  every  phase 
of  the  subject  was  tested  in  the  courts,  and  the  law  was  upheld. 
Then  the  Church  adopted  the  manifesto  against  polygamy,  which 
was  ratified  by  the  general  conference  of  the  people,  and  there- 
upon the  practice  of  polygamy  for  the  future  was  abandoned." 
(From  a  speech  by  Senator  Reed  Smoot,  of  Utah,  in  the  United 
States  Senate,  February  19,  1907.) 

(d)  "No  land  in  America  surpasses  in  fertility  the  plains  and 
valleys  of  Luzon.  Rice  and  coffee,  sugar  and  cocoanuts,  hemp 
and  tobacco,  and  many  products  of  the  temperate  as  well  as  the 
tropic  zone  grow  in  various  sections  of  the  archipelago.  I  have 
seen  hundreds  of  bushels  of  Indian  corn  lying  in  a  road  fringed 
with  banana  trees.  The  forests  of  Negros,  Mindanao,  Mindora, 
Paluan,  and  parts  of  Luzon  are  invaluable  and  intact.  The 
wood  of  the  Philippines  can  supply  the  furniture  of  the  world 
for  a  century  to  come.  At  Cebu  the  best  informed  man  in  the 
island  told  me  that  forty  miles  of  Cebu's  mountain  chain  are 
practically  mountains  of  coal.  Pablo  Majia,  one  of  the  most 
reliable  men  on  the  islands,  confirmed  the  statement.  Some  de- 
clare that  the  coal  is  only  lignite;  but  ship  captains  who  have 
used  it  told  me  that  it  is  better  steamer  fuel  than  the  best  coal 
of  Japan.  I  have  a  nugget  of  pure  gold  picked  up  in  its  present 
form  on  the  banks  of  a  Philippine  creek.  I  have  gold  dust 
washed  out  by  crude  processes  of  careless  natives  from  the  sands 
of  a  Philippine  stream.  Both  indicate  great  deposits  at  the  source 
from  which  they  come.  In  one  of  the  islands  great  deposits  of 
copper  exist  untouched.  The  mineral  wealth  of  this  empire  of 
the  ocean  will  one  day  surprise  the  world.  1  base  this  statement 
partly  on  personal  observation,  but  chiefly  on  the  testimony  of  for- 
eign merchants  in  the  Philippines,  who  have  practically  investi- 
gated the  subject,  and  upon  the  unanimous  opinion  of  natives  and 
priests.  And  the  mineral  wealth  is  but  a  small  fraction  of  the 
agricultural  wealth  of  these  islands.  These  conclusions  were 
forced  upon  me  by  observing  the  people  in  all  walks  of  life  in 
the  different  islands,  and  by  conversations  with  foreign  mer- 
chants, priests,  mestizos,  pure  Filipinos,  and  every  variety  of 
mind,  character  and  opinion,  from  San  Fernando,  in  Luzon,  on 
down  through  the  entire  archipelago  to  the  interior  of  Sulu. 
These  conversations  were  had  informally  at  dinner-tables,  on 
journeys,  and  the  like,  and  always  under  conditions  favorable 


90  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

to  entire  frankness  and  unreserve.  Their  chief  value  is  that  they 
are  the  real  opinions  of  their  authors  and  not  prepared  and 
guarded  statements."  (From  a  speech  by  Senator  Albert  J.  Be<v- 
eridge  in  the  United  States  Senate,  January  9,  IQOO.) 

(e)  "In  no  country  perhaps  in  the  world  is  the  law  so  general 
a  study.  The  profession  itself  is  numerous  and  powerful ;  and 
in  most  provinces  it  takes  the  lead-  The  greater  number  of  the 
deputies  sent  to  the  Congress  were  lawyers.  But  all  who  read, 
and  most  do  read,  endeavor  to  obtain  some  smattering  in  that 
science.  I  have  been  told  by  an  eminent  bookseller,  that  in  no 
branch  of  his  business,  after  tracts  of  popular  devotion,  were 
so  many  books  as  those  on  the  law  exported  to  the  Plantations. 
The  colonists  have  now  fallen  into  the  way  of  printing  them  for 
their  own  use.  I  hear  that  they  have  -  sold  nearly  as  many  of 
Blackstone's  Commentaries  in  America  as  in  England.  General 
Gage  marks  out  this  disposition  very  particularly  in  a  letter  on 
your  table.  He  states  that  all  the  people  in  his  government  are 
lawyers,  or  smatterers  in  law;  and  that  in  Boston  they  have  been 
enabled,  by  successful  chicane,  wholly  to  evade  many  parts  of 
one  of  your  capital  penal  constitutions.  (From  Burke's  Speech 
on  "Conciliation.") 

(/)  "I  am  a  blacksmith  in  the  town  of  Catskill,  New  York. 
While  overheated  at  my  forge,  I  was  exposed  to  a  draft  and 
was  taken  down  with  inflammatory  rheumatism.  For  three  weeks 
the  doctors  were  unable  to  relieve  me,  but  two  bottles  of  your 
liniment  effected  a  cure. — JOHN  SMITH." 

(g)  "It  is  evident  that  the  climate  of  Virginia  is  changed. 
The  old  inhabitants  here  tell  me  that  they  remember  when 
snow  lay  on  the  ground  four  months  every  year,  and  they  rode 
in  sleighs.  Now  it  is  rare  that  we  get  enough  snow  to  have  a 
sleigh-ride.  It  is  apparent  that  the  climate  of  Virginia  has 
changed  since  1607,  when  the  settlers  came  into  Jamestown." 
(From  the  diary  of  Thomas  Jefferson.) 


CHAPTER  V 

DIRECT   PROOF KINDS   OF   ARGUMENTS 

As  we  have  seen,  facts  are  necessary  in  debate, 
but  this  is  not  all.  The  debater  must  learn  to  use 
his  facts,  to  reason  with  and  from  them — a 
thing  that  many  erudite  men  never  do  learn.  That 
is,  a  given  proposition  is  to  be  established  or 
overthrown  "by  a  process  of  reasoning  from  facts 
closely  related  to  the  facts  in  issue."  Hence  the 
efforts  of  writers  on  argumentation,  since  the  days 
or  Aristotle,  to  classify  the  operations  of  the  rea- 
soning faculties.  Obviously,  any  attempted  classi- 
fication has  its  difficulties  and  limitations.  One 
process  of  reasoning  easily  runs  into  another; 
a  given  process  may  be  one  kind  of  argument,  or 
another,  depending  upon  the  point  of  view;  and 
processes  of  reasoning  are  so  complex  that  no  hard 
and  fast  line  can  be  drawn  which  will  enable  us  to 
pigeon-hole  arguments  into  mutually  exclusive 
kinds.  However,  the  classification  itself  is  of  no 
great  importance.  The  advantage  in  some  sort 
of  a  classification  lies  in  the  opportunity  it  affords 
of  studying  the  more  common  forms  of  reasoning 
by  themselves,  and  more  especially  the  opportunity 

(91) 


92  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

it  affords  of  learning  what  It  is  In  a  given  argument 
that  makes  it  strong  or  weak.  To  that  end,  let  us 
look  at  some  of  the  principal  kinds  of  arguments 
from  the  viewpoint  of  the  debater. 

Proof  may  be  classified  into  two  main  divisions : 
direct  proof  and  refutation.  When  a  speaker 
states  and  supports  his  own  line  of  argument,  this 
is  direct  proof;  when  he  meets  objections  to  his 
argument,  it  is  refutation.  The  principal  kinds  of 
arguments  in  direct  proof  are:  Antecedent  Prob- 
ability, the  Argument  from  Sign,  the  Argument 
from  Authority,  Example  and  Analogy,  and  the 
Method  of  Residues, 

Antecedent  Probability. — The  argument  of  an- 
tecedent probability  (sometimes  called  general 
probability)  usually  comes  first  in  the  order  of 
presentation.  It  is  the  a  priori  argument  of  for- 
mal logic,  or  reasoning  from  cause  to  effect.  The 
method  of  its  use  consists  in  showing  that  an  event 
was  possible  or  probable,  on  the  ground  that  there 
was  sufficient  cause  to  produce  it.  The  argument 
has  its  source  in  the  relation  which  cause  bears  to 
effect,  or  motive  to  a  cause  of  action.  It  derives  its 
force  from  the  universal  belief  that  things  do  not 
happen  without  adequate  cause,  and  that  whenever 
an  adequate  cause  is  shown,  the  effect  is  reasonably 
to  be  expected.  This  method  of  proof  was  early 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS  93 

formulated  and  extensively  used  by  the  Greek  rhet- 
oricians and  professional  speech-writers,  even  as 
early  as  500  B.  c.  Says  Sears,  in  his  "History  of 
Oratory"  (page  40)  : 

Antiphon's  strong  point  in  argument  was  the  topic  of 
General  [antecedent]  Probability.  "Is  it  likely  that  such 
and  such  a  thing  would  have  occurred?"  "Would  this 
little  man  have  been  likely  to  attack  this  big  one;  or,  if  he 
did,  would  he  not  have  known  beforehand  that  the  pre- 
sumption would  be  against  him?"  This  topic  of  general 
probability  was  the  favorite  weapon  of  the  Greek  rhet- 
oricians. AristoTle  himself  gave  it  an  important  place  in 
his  great  treatise  in  which  he  formulated  the  principles 
that  had  prevailed  in  the  usage  of  the  early  orators. 

The  typical  example  of  this  kind  of  argument  is 
that  of  showing  motive  for  a  crime.  If  it  be  shown 
that  A  had  a  motive  to  kill  B,  the  murder  of  B 
(the  effect)  was  the  probable  result  of  such  mo- 
tive (the  cause)  acting  through  A.  In  the  White 
murder  trial,  for  example,  Webster  first  shows  a 
motive  on  the  part  of  the  prisoner: 

Joseph  Knapp  had  a  motive  to  desire  the  death  of  Mr. 
^Vhite,  and  that  motive  has  been  shown.  He  was  con- 
nected by  marriage  with  the  family  of  Mr.  White.  His 
wife  was  the  daughter  of  Mrs.  Beckford,  who  was  the 
only  child  of  a  sister  of  the  deceased.  The  deceased  was 
more  than  eighty  years  old,  and  had  no  children.  His 
only  heirs  were  nephews  and  nieces.  He  was  supposed 
to  be  possessed  of  a  very  large  fortune,  which  would  have 


£4  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

descended,  by  law,  to  his  several  nephews  and  nieces  in 
equal  shares;  or,  if  there  was  a  will,  then  according  to 
the  will.  But  as  he  had  but  two  branches  of  heirs,  the 
children  of  his  brother,  Henry  White,  and  of  Mrs.  Beck- 
ford,  each  of  these  branches,  according  to  the  common 
idea,  would  have  shared  one  half  of  his  property.  This 
popular  idea  is  not  legally  correct.  But  it  is  common, 
and  very  probably  was  entertained  by  the  parties.  Ac- 
cording to  this  idea,  Mrs.  Beckford,  on  Mr.  White's 
death  without  a  will,  would  have  been  entitled  to  one 
half  of  his  ample  fortune;  and  Joseph  Knapp  had  mar- 
ried one  of  her  three  children.  There  was  a  will,  and 
this  will  gave  the  bulk  of  the  property  to  others;  and 
we  learn  from  Palmer  that  one  part  of  the  design  was  to 
destroy  the  will  before  the  murder  was  committed.  There 
had  been  a  previous  will,  and  that  previous  will  was 
known  or  believed  to  have  been  more  favorable  than  the 
other  to  the  Beckford  family.  So  that,  by  destroying  the 
last  will,  and  destroying  the  life  of  the  testator  at  the 
same  time,  either  the  first  and  more  favorable  will  would 
be  set  up,  or  the  deceased  would  have  no  will,  which 
would  be,  as  was  supposed,  still  more  favorable.  .  .  . 
When  we  look  back,  then,  to  the  state  of  things  imme- 
diately on  the  discovery  of  the  murder,  we  see  that  sus- 
picion would  naturally  turn  at  once,  not  to  the  heirs  at 
law,  but  to  those  principally  benefited  by  the  will. 
They,  and  they  alone,  would  be  supposed  or  seem  to  have 
a  direct  object  for  wishing  Mr.  White's  life  to  be  term* 
nated. 

Not  only  in  the  courts,  but  in  political  discus- 
sions and  practical  affairs,  the  argument  of  ante- 
cedent probability  is  very  common.  In  general  de- 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS  95 

bate  it  has  a  somewhat  wider  use  than  the  proof 
which  is  based  simply  on  that  of  a  cause  for  a 
given  effect.  The  method  is  used  in  attempting 
to  show  that  a  proposition  is  probably  true,  that  it 
is  likely  to  be  true,  on  the  face  of  it.  Thus  the  de- 
bater, as  is  sometimes  said,  tries  to  account  for 
something  that  he  assumes  to  be  true.  In  this 
sense  the  argument  bears  a  general  resemblance  to 
the  deductive  method.  "It  is  reasonable,"  the  ar- 
guer  contends,  "to  expect  that  this  proposition  is 
true";  and  facts  and  principles  are  brought  for- 
ward to  justify  such  expectation.  As  tending  to 
prove  an  alleged  truth,  he  shows  why  it  might  be 
true ;  to  support  the  adoption  of  a  proposed  policy, 
he  shows  from  antecedent  circumstances  why  it 
would  be  expedient,  or  that  it  conforms  to  some 
well-established  principle.  This  method  is  a  pow- 
erful aid,  then,  in  raising  a  presumption  in  one's 
favor,  and  it  is  widely  serviceable  for  such  pur- 
pose. 

An  introductory  sentence  in  a  recent  maga- 
zine article  runs  as  follows :  "In  the  present  article 
I  shall  simply  put  down  without  much  comment 
certain  random  facts  in  the  summer  routine  of  our 
affluent  and  conspicuous  families,  trusting  that 
these  facts  will  speak  for  themselves  to  thoughtful 
people  and  create  a  preliminary  impression  that 
may  assist  my  purpose  to  presently  contrast  these 


96  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

glittering  lives  with  the  lives  of  our  tortured  and 
miserable  poor  as  we  find  them  to-day  in  the  great 
cities  of  America."  And  to  create  a  "preliminary 
impression"  the  argument  from  antecedent  proba- 
bility is  frequently  employed.  It  prepares  the  way 
for  direct  evidence.  Thus  skilled  trial  lawyers  take 
great  pains  in  presenting  to  the  jury  the  prelimin- 
ary statement  of  facts  in  a  case.  They  know  the 
importance  of  making  the  first  impressions  of  the 
case  as  strong  as  possible,  so  that  the  jurors'  minds 
are  prepared  to  receive  the  evidence  corroborative 
of  the  opening  statement.  The  advertisers  of 
patent  medicines  act  on  the  same  principle.  By  a 
description  of  the  disease  and  of  the  remedy  of- 
fered, they  make  it  plain  why  their  medicine  may 
be  expected  to  effect  a  cure, — and  the  reader's 
mind  is  thus  prepared  for  the  testimonies  of  cures 
that  usually  follow.  It  is  a  matter  of  common  ob- 
servation that  predisposed  opinions  have  such 
weight  that  it  is  easy  to  convince  one  of  that  which 
he  deems  probable,  and  extremely  difficult  to  per- 
suade men  to  believe  even  direct  evidence  if  they 
are  already  convinced  of  its  antecedent  improba- 
bility. Thus  there  is  a  general  acceptance  of  a 
belief  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  yet,  aside 
from  the  question  of  divine  revelation,  such  belief 
rests  solely  on  the  argument  that  it  is  likely  to  be 
true.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  general  dis- 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS 


97 


belief  in  spiritualism  because,  as  is  generally  held, 
of  its  antecedent  improbability.  It  is  not  infre- 
quently the  first  task  of  the  debater  to  remove  un- 
favorable impressions  that  may  exist  in  his  hearers' 
minds.  This  is  no  small  part  of  the  work  of  the 
advocate,  in  a  trial  at  law.  For  example,  Sargent 
S.  Prentiss,  in  his  famous  plea  in  defense  of  Judge 
Wikinson,  attempted  to  remove  the  unfavorable 
impression  that  may  have  arisen  from  the  change 
of  venue,  as  follows: 


of  the  jury,  this  is  a  case  of  no  ordinary 
character*  ,and  possesses  no  ordinary  interest.  Three  of 
the  most  respectable  citizens  of  the  State  of  Mississippi 
stand  before  you,  indicted  for  the  crime  of  murder,  the 
highest  offense  known  to  the  laws  of  the  land.  The 
crime  is  charged  to  have  been  committed  not  in  your  own 
county,  but  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  and  there  the  indict- 
ment was  found.  The  defendants,  during  the  past  win- 
ter, applied  to  the  Legislature  for  a  change  of  venue,  and 
elected  your  county  as  the  place  at  which  they  would 
prefer  to  have  the  question  of  their  innocence  or  guilt 
investigated. 

This  course,  at  first  blush,  may  be  calculated  to  raise  in 
your  minds  some  unfavorable  impressions.  You  may 
naturally  inquire  why  it  was  taken;  why  they  did  not 
await  their  trial  in  the  county  in  which  the  offense  was 
charged  to  have  been  committed;  in  fine,  why  they  came 
here?  I  feel  it  my  duty,  before  entering  into  the  merits 
of  this  case,  to  answer  these  questions,  and  to  obviate 
Such  impressions  as  I  have  alluded  to,  which,  without  e^- 

7 


98  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

planation,  might  very  naturally  exist.  In  doing  so,  it  will 
be  necessary  to  advert  briefly  to  the  history  of  the  case. 
My  clients  have  come  before  you  for  justice.  They  have 
fled  to  you,  even  as  to  the  horns  of  the  altar,  for  protec- 
tion. It  is  not  unknown  to  you,  that  upon  the  occurrence 
of  the  events,  the  character  of  which  you  are  about  to  try, 
great  tumult  and  excitement  prevailed  in  the  city  of 
Louisville.  Passion  and  prejudice  poured  poison  into 
the  public  ear.  Popular  feeling  was  roused  into  mad- 
ness. It  was  with  the  utmost  difficulty  that  the  strong 
arm  of  the  constituted  authorities  wrenched  the  victims 
from  the  hands  of  an  infuriated  mfb.  Even  the  thick 
walls  of  the  prison  hardly  afforded  protection  to  the  ac- 
cused. Crouched  and  shivering  upon  the  c»ld  fl»«r  »f 
their  gloomy  dungeon,  they  listened  t*  the  fotsteps  «f 
the  gathering  crowds;  and  ever  and  anon,  the  winter 
wind  that  played  melancholy  music  through  the  rusty 
gates,  was  drowned  by  the  fierce  howling  of  the  human 
wolves,  who  prowled  and  bayed  around  their  place  of 
refuge,  thirsting  for  blood.  Every  breeze  that  swept 
over  the  city  bore  awray  slander  and  falsehood  upon  its 
wings.  ...  I  am  told  that  when  the  examination  took 
place  before  the  magistrates,  every  bad  passion,  every  un- 
generous prejudice,  was  appealed  to.  The  argument  was 
addressed,  not  to  the  court,  but  to  the  populace.  ...  It 
was  this  course  of  conduct  and  this  state  of  feeling  which 
induced  the  change  of  venue.1 

Following  is  another  example,  different  in  kind, 
and  yet  essentially  an  a  'priori  argument.  It  illus- 
trates the  close  relation  between  the  argument  of 

1  "Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  pp.  88-91, 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS  99 

antecedent  probability,  >as  frequently  employed, 
and  the  burden  of  proof.  Senator  Beveridge,  in 
the  article  previously  quoted  from,  combats  the 
States'  rights  doctrine  by  showing  how  changed 
conditions  render  it  now  necessary  for  the  Federal 
Government  to  do  many  things  not  contemplated 
by  the  framers  of  our  Constitution: 

The  progress  of  nationality  and  the  decay  of  "States' 
rights"  grows  out  of  changed  conditions.  The  railroad, 
telegraph,  and  telephone  have  bound  our  people  into  a 
national  unit.  None  of  these  agencies  of  national  soli- 
darity existed  when  the  Republic  was  founded.  We  were 
then  a  handful  of  people,  and  this  handful  separated  by 
lack  of  communication.  But  now  San  Francisco  is  much 
nearer  New  York  than  Pittsburg  was  to  Boston  in  the 
old  days.  One  can  travel  in  luxury  from  Washington  to 
Chicago  in  a  fifth  of  the  time  that  the  fathers  could  cross 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania.  We  can  talk  instantaneously 
from  St.  Louis  to  Philadelphia  to-day.  Whereas,  we 
were  only  four  million  people  in  the  days  when  States' 
rights  was  in  its  greatest  vigor,  we  are  now  eighty  mil- 
lions of  people,  and  in  half  a  century  will  be  two  hun- 
dred million  of  people — and  these  all  woven  closely 
together  by  the  most  perfect  facilities  of  communication 
the  world  has  ever  seen. 

All^this  creates  new  problems  which  the  old  theory  of 
States'  rights  never  contemplated,  and  new  necessities  on 
the  part  of  the  people  which  States'  rights  cannot  supply. 
But  the -people's  problems  must  be  solved,  the  people's 
necessities  supplied.  Each^iay  makes  it  clearer  that  only 
the  nation  can  do  this.  That  is  why  the  n^ion  is  4oing 


100  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

it.  If  the  States  could  do  that  work  better,  nothing 
could  prevent  them  from  doing  it.  It  is  because  the 
nation  is  the  only  force  equal  to  the  daily  developing  needs 
of  the  people  that  nationality  is  developing,  and  for  no 
other  reason.  In  all  of  this  there  is  no  harm,  but  only 
the  welfare  of  the  people;  for  it  is  merely  the  people 
themselves  acting  in  common  for  their  common  good. 

After  all,  the  purpose  of  these  free  institutions  of  ours 
is  to  make  better  people.  The  reason  of  our  government 
is  to  improve  human  conditions  and  to  make  this  country 
a  fairer  place  for  men  and  women  to  live  in.  No  jugglery 
with  mere  phrases  can  impair  this  mighty  truth,  upon 
which,  and  upon  which  alone,  the  Republic  is  founded. 

Tests  of  the  Argument  of  Antecedent  Proba- 
bility.— The  strength  of  this  argument  depends 
upon  the  closeness  of  the  causal  relationship.  It 
must  appear  that  one  thing  is  the  natural  and  prob- 
able cause  of  another;  else  we  have  the  fallacy 
technically  known  as  post  hoc  ergo  propter  hoc 
(usually  called  simply  post  hoc) — after  this,  there- 
fore because  of  this.  The  argument  must  answer 
favorably  these  two  test  questions :  ( i\)  Was  the 
assigned  cause  adequate  to  produce  the  alleged  ef- 
fect? and  (2)  Were  there  no  other  acting  causes 
which  may  have  produced  the  same  result^?  It 
will  readily  be  seen  that  these  tests  are  destructive 
of  many  so-called  arguments  from  cause  to  effect. 
Thus,  the  causal  connection,  and  the  intervention 
•f  other  forces  than  the  assigned  cause,  affect  the 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS  IOI 

probative  value  of  our  common  superstitions.  To 
say  that  the  moon  affects  growing  crops;  that 
breaking  a  looking-glass  will  be  followed  by  death 
in  the  family;  that  Friday  and  the  number  thir- 
teen are  omens  of  bad  luck,  etc., — all  such  infer- 
ences fail  to  meet  the  aforementioned  tests  of  ade- 
quacy and  closeness  in  causal  relationship.  Infer- 
ences no  less  palpably  unsound  are  common  in  po- 
litical discussions.  To  argue,  £or  example,  that 
commercial  prosperity  or  depression  results  from 
&  given  tariff  policy  leaves  out  of  consideration  so 
many  other  possible  causes  that  economists  gener- 
ally content  themselves  with  enunciating  principles, 
and  leave  it  to  the  politicians  to  draw  conclusions 
based  on  alleged  cause  and  effect. 

The  argument  of  antecedent  probability,  then, 
is  mainly  preparatory  and  corroboratory.  Standing 
by  itself,  it  is  not  conclusive.  Its  great  value  lies  in 
impressing  the  minds  of  the  hearers  favorably  as 
to  one's  argument,  and  so  preparing  them  for  the 
reception  of  further  and  more  conclusive  proof. 

The  Argument  from  Sign. — Corresponding  to 
the  argument  of  antecedent  probability  is  the  ar- 
gument from  sign.  In  logic  this  is  known  as  the 
a  posteriori  method — reasoning  from  effect  to 
cause.  A  given  effect  is  absolutely  known,  and 
from  it  we  infer  a  probable  cau,se — a  process  in- 


IO2  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

verse  to  the  argument  of  antecedent  probability. 
A  certain  known  thing,  we  say,  is  reason  for  believ,- 
ing  in  the  existence  of  another.  Something  has 
happened;  effects  are  pointed  out  that  are  likely 
to  have  been  produced  by  the  event  or  act  in  ques- 
tion, an  effect  being  regarded  as  the  "sign"  of  the 
cause.  If  there  is  a  red  sky  at  sunset,  we  infer  that 
the  atmospheric  conditions  are  such  that  fair 
weather  will  follow.  When  we  see  a  rainbow  we 
conclude  that  at  that  point  the  sun's  rays  are  fall- 
ing on  rain-drops.  When  statistics  are  adduced  t« 
show  the  beneficial  results  of  a  given  monetary  or 
tariff  policy,  we  are  reasoning  from  effect  to  cause. 
Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  arguments  from  sign 
and  of  antecedent  probability  are  complementary, 
the  one  looking  backward,  the  other  forward;  and 
a  given  argument  in  this  class  may  sometimes  be 
termed  one  or  the  other,  depending  upon  the  point 
of  view. 

The  most  familiar  examples  of  argument  from 
sign  are  found  in  criminal  trials.  As  Webster  re- 
marked in  the  White  murder  trial,  "midnight  as- 
sassins take  no  witnesses."  "Circumstances," 
someone  has  said,  "are  God's  detectives.  With 
their  sightless  eyes  and  voiceless  tongues  they  see 
farther  and  speak  louder  than  the  average  human 
witness."  In  one  sense,  the  argument  from  sign  is 
more  certain  proof  than  the  argument  of  antece- 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS  103 

4Went  probability.  No  matter  how  many  reasons 
jnay  be  assigned  to  show  that  A  would  probably 
•nurder  B,  they  are  of  no  avail  unless  it  be  shown 
•that  B  has  been  murdered.  Hence  the  law,  in  capi- 
Jtal  cases,  insists  that  the  sign  of  the  murder  be  con- 
Delusively  shown — the  doctrine  of  corpus  delicti. 
^This  having  been  shown,  all  the  facts  relating  to 
•the  accused  person  after  the  occurrence  of  the 
Berime — "circumstantial"  evidence — belong  to  the 
•argument  from  sign.  As  an  example,  Webster 
•supplemented  his  argument  (previously  quoted), 
•showing  the  antecedent  probability  that  Frank 
•Knapp  was  one  of  the  conspirators  who  murdered 

Captain    White,    with    the    following    argument 

from  sign : 

Let  me  ask  your  attention,  then,  in  the  first  place,  to 
those  appearances,  on  the  morning  after  the  murder, 
which  have  a  tendency  to  show  that  it  was  done  in  pur- 
suance of  a  preconcerted  plan  of  operation.  What  are 
they?  A  man  was  found  murdered  in  his  bed.  No 
stranger  had  done  the  deed,  no  one  unacquainted  with 
the  house  had  done  it.  It  was  apparent  that  somebody 
within  had  opened,  and  that  somebody  without  had 
entered.  There  had  obviously  and  certainly  been  concert 
and  cooperation.  The  inmates  of  the  house  were  not 
alarmed  when  the  murder  was  perpetrated.  The  assas- 
sin had  entered  without  any  riot  or  any  violence.  He 
had  found  the  way  prepared  before  him.  The  house  had 
been  previously  opened.  The  window  was  unbarred 
from  within,  and  its  fastening  unscrewed.  There  was  a 


104  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

lock  on  the  door  of  the  chamber  in  which  Mr.  Whitfll 
slept,  but  the  key  was  gone.  It  had  been  taken  away  and 
secreted.  The  footsteps  of  the  murderer  were  visible^ 
out-doors,  tending  toward  the  window.  The  plank  by 
which  he  entered  the  window  still  remained.  The  roacff 
he  pursued  had  been  thus  prepared  for  him.  The  victim^ 
was  slain,  and  the  murderer  had  escaped.  Everything^ 
indicated  that  somebody  within  had  cooperated  witl^ 
somebody  without.  Everything  proclaimed  that  some  oig 
the  inmates,  or  somebody  having  access  to  the  house,  hadj 
had  a  hand  in  the  murder.  On  the  face  of  the  circum-^ 
stances,  it  was  apparent,  therefore,  that  this  was  a  pre-« 
meditated,  concerted  murder;  that  there  had  been  a  con-J 
spiracy  to  commit  it.  It 

The  arguments  of  sign  and  antecedent  proba-  • 
bility  stand  or  fall  together.  Since  both  depend 
upon  causal  relationship,  they  are  both  measured 
by  the  same  tests.  Whenever  the  two  arguments 
can  be  linked  together, — as  is  done  by  Webster  in 
the  two  previous  extracts, — a  strong  argument  re- 
sults. But  the  argument  from  sign,  standing  by 
itself,  is  rarely  conclusive,  and  the  danger  of  de- 
pending upon  circumstantial  evidence  alone  has 
passed  into  a  proverb.  You  may  pile  sign  upon 
sign  to  show  that  A  murdered  B,  but  if  A  can 
prove  an  alibi,  all  the  signs  fail.  An  example 
showing  the  danger  in  sign-inferences  will  be  seen 
in  the  following  story  that  recently  went  the  round 
of  the  newspapers: 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS  1 05 

During  the  college  days  of  ex-Mayor  Bessom,  of  Lynn, 
he  had  two  of  the  professors  of  the  college  as  guests  at  a 
hunting  camp  in  the  Maine  woods.  When  they  entered 
the  camp  their  attention  was  attracted  to  the  unusual 
position  of  the  stove,  which  was  set  on  posts  about  four 
feet  high. 

One  of  the  professors  began  to  comment  upon  the 
knowledge  woodsmen  gain  by  observation.  "Now," 
said  he,  "this  man  has  discovered  that  the  heat  radiat- 
ing from  the  stove  strikes  the  roof,  and  the  circulation 
is  so  quickened  that  the  camp  is  warmed  in  much  less 
time  than  would  be  required  if  the  stove  was  in  its  regu- 
lar place  on  the  floor."  The  other  professor  was  of  the 
opinion  that  the  stove  was  elevated  to  be  above  the  win- 
dow, in  order  that  cool  and  pure  air  could  be  had  at 
•light.  Mr.  Bessom,  being  more  practical,  contended 
0that  the  stove  was  elevated  in  order  that  a  good  supply 
of  green  wood  could  be  placed  beneath  it  to  dry.  After 
considerable  argument  the  guide  was  called  and  asked 
why  the  stove  was  placed  in  such  an  unusual  position. 
"Well,"  said  he,  "when  I  brought  the  stove  up  the  river 
I  lost  most  of  the  stovepipe  overboard,  and  had  to  set  the 
stove  up  there  so  as  to  have  the  pipe  reach  through  the 
roof." 

Argument  from  Authority. — The  argument 
from  authority  rests  on  the  peculiar  force  of  one's 
opinion  whose  special  knowledge  of,  skill  in,  or  ex- 
perience with  a  matter  under  discussion  enables 
him  to  reach  a  true  conclusion.  As  a  man  is  un- 
able to  investigate  for  himself  every  question  that 
arises,  he  must  accept  the  conclusions  reached  by 


106  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

others  in  matters  in  which  they  are  competent  and 
more  or  less  exclusive  judges.  In  law,  if  such 
conclusions  be  admitted  as  evidence  in  the  trial  of 
a  cause,  it  is  called  "expert  testimony";  while  the 
opinions  of  judges,  in  adjudicated  cases,  constitute 
authorities  applicable  to  subsequent  similar  cases. 
Although  "expert  testimony"  and  "authority"  are 
clearly  distinguished  in  legal  practice,  for  the  pur- 
poses of  general  debating  they  may  be  classed  to- 
gether, the  former  usually  having  reference  to  the 
testimony  of  a  specialist  on  a  question  of  disputed 
fact,  the  latter  to  those  fundamental  laws  and  prin- 
ciples found  in  books  and  documents  which  are 
generally  accepted  as  authoritative.  Thus,  in  law* 
appeal  is  made  to  recorded  cases  and  precedents; 
in  theology,  to  the  Bible;  in  politics,  to  constitu- 
tions and  statutes;  in  science,  philosophy,  econom- 
ics, etc.,  to  the  works  of  those  men  who  are  emi- 
nent in  their  respective  fields. 

While  we  commonly  speak  of  the  use  of  author- 
ity as  one  of  the  kinds  of  argument,  it  is,  more 
properly  perhaps,  a  kind  of  evidence  and  not  a 
process  of  reasoning — the  debater  asking  his  hear- 
ers to  accept  the  conclusions  of  another  as  evi- 
dence of  the  truth  of  a  given  proposition.  Now, 
if  the  authority  used  refers  to  an  elementary  prin- 
ciple in  economics,  or  law,  or  education,  ready  ac- 
ceptance may  safely  be  assumed.  But  if  one  is  de- 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS  1 07 

bating  a  question  of  policy,  there  is  usually  such  a 
conflict  of  authorities  on  various  phases  of  the 
question  that  no  one  authority,  however  eminent, 
can  be  cited  as  decisive.  It  then  becomes  a  matter 
of  weighing  authorities — or  of  comparing  wit- 
nesses; and  all  the  tests  of  witnesses,  previously 
referred  to,  are  to  be  applied.  Thus,  in  an  edi- 
torial regarding  our  permanent  retention  of  the 
Philippine  Islands,  in  the  New  York  Evening 
Post,  the  value  of  an  authority  quoted  is  explained 
as  follows : 

Mr.  John  Foreman  is  conceded  to  be  the  foremost 
authority  on  the  Philippine  Islands.  A  resident  in  the 
archipelago  for  eleven  years;  continuously  acquainted 
with  the  natives  for  twenty;  a  frequent  visitor  to  vari- 
ous islands  of  the  group;  possessed  of  a  more  intimate 
knowledge  of  Filipino  character  and  a  larger  circle  of 
friends  and  correspondents  among  the  inhabitants  than 
any  foreigner  living;  the  historian  par  excellence  of  land 
and  people,  he  is  a  qualified  expert  to  whom  we  are  bound 
to  listen.  Certainly  there  is  no  need  to  labor  this  point 
with  Republicans.  He  is  their  own  witness,  and  they 
dare  not  try  to  discredit  them.  Professor  Worcester,  of 
both  Philippine  commissions,  constantly  bows  in  his  own 
book  to  the  authority  of  Foreman.  He  was  especially 
summoned  to  Paris  by  our  Peace  Commissioners  as  the 
very  man  to  guide  their  uncertain  steps  aright. 

Tests  of  the  Argument  from  Authority. — Spe- 
cifically, then,  the  two  main  tests  of  this  argument 


108  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

are:  (i)  Is  the  authority  competent?  (2)  Is  the 
authority  recognized  as  such  by  the  hearers? 
Whenever  another's  opinion  is  quoted  to  sub- 
stantiate a  statement,  it  must  appear  that  the  per- 
son quoted  is  an  authority  on  the  matter  in  ques- 
tion and  the  best  that  can  be  produced.  If  the  au- 
thority used  amounts  to  expert  testimony,  it  must 
appear  that  the  witness  is  qualified  as  an  expert. 
The  opinion  of  a  member  of  the  Panama  Com- 
mission on  the  subject  of  the  interoceanic  canal 
would  be  better  authority  than  a  statement  by  a 
member  of  Congress.  A  Government  publication 
is  better  authority  than  an  irresponsible  newspaper 
report.  If  Thomas  W.  Lawson's  articles  on  ''Fren- 
zied Finance"  were  quoted  as  authority  regarding 
the  unjustifiable  methods  of  the  Standard  Oil 
Company,  it  might  be  urged  that  he  speaks  as  a 
partisan.  On  the  other  hand,  his  claims  to  relia- 
bility are  thus  defended  by  the  Detroit  News- 
Tribune  : 

Mr.  Lawson  is  many  times  a  millionaire.  At  least 
such  is  the  common  belief  among  his  countrymen,  and  it 
is  certain  that,  in  all  the  outward  evidences  of  the  pos- 
session of  great  wealth,  he  keeps  pace  with  most  of  our 
modern  Croesuses.  A  man's  possessions  are  not  neces- 
sarily indicative  of  his  veracity;  but,  under  particular 
circumstances,  they  may  become  so.  In  this  instance  they 
are  at  least  presumptive  proof  that  he  has  not  yet  over- 
stepped the  bounds  of  what  he  is  prepared  to  establish 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS  109 

if  haled  into  court  by  any  of  the  victims  of  his  scathing 
and  erratic  pen.  This  is  true  because  his  financial  re- 
sponsibility is  hardly  to  be  questioned,  and  none  of  the 
money-bags  who  have  been  squirming  under  his  lash  can 
excuse  himself  from  bringing  action  against  the  offender 
on  the  ground  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  recover  any- 
think  like  adequate  damages.  Moreover,  there  has  been 
ample  temptation  to  shut  him  off  by  proceedings  under 
laws  of  criminal  libel,  if  he  has  afforded  his  former  asso- 
ciates any  hopeful  opportunity  for  such  action.  Month 
after  month  his  revelations  of  criminal  doings,  apparently 
brought  home  to  men  of  prominence  and  standing  in  the 
financial  and  social  worlds,  have  been  permitted  to  ap- 
pear without  the  slightest  public  effort  made  to  shut 
off  this  flood  of  disclosures.  Up  to  date  the  general  pub- 
lic has  accepted  Mr.  Lawson's  literary  efforts  with  a  sur- 
prise mingled  writh  incredulity.  His  continued  immunity 
from  interference  or  attempted  punishment  for  statements 
of  the  most  damning  import  directed  against  supposedly 
self-respecting  men  is  beginning  to  influence  many  to  the 
belief  that  those  whom  he  attacks  are  in  no  position  to 
reply. 

Not  only  must  the  authority  be  good  in  itself, 
it  must  be  accepted  by  the  hearers.  The  final 
judge  as  to  its  fitness  in  a  given  case  is,  not  the 
speaker,  but  his  audience.  If  the  authority  is  not 
respected,  in  matters  of  opinion  it  is  no  authority. 
In  this  connection  it  is  well  to  note  the  decay  of  the 
argument  from  authority  in  modern  times.  It  is 
of  more  force  in  legal  discussions  than  in  general 
debate,  but  even  in  the  courts,  so  far  as  "expert 


IIO  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

testimony"  is  concerned,  juries  are  now  slow  to  ac- 
cept the  opinions  of  experts  as  final.  The  reasons 
for  this  are  thus  set  forth  by  Wharton  in  his  "Law 
of  Evidence"  (page  425)  : 

When  expert  testimony  was  first  introduced  it  was  re- 
garded with  great  respect.  An  expert,  when  called  as  a 
witness,  was  viewed  as  the  representative  of  the  science 
of  which  he  was  a  professor,  giving  impartially  its  con- 
clusions. Two  conditions  have  combined  to  produce  a 
material  change  in  this  relation.  In  the  first  place,  it  has 
been  discovered  that  no  expert,  no  matter  how  learned 
and  incorrupt,  speaks  for  his  science  as  a  whole.  Few 
specialties  are  so  small  as  not  to  be  torn  by  factions;  and 
often,  the  smaller  the  specialty,  the  bitterer  and  more 
inflaming  and  distorting  are  the  animosities  by  which 
these  factions  are  possessed.  ...  In  the  second  place,  the 
retaining  of  experts,  by  a  fee  proportioned  to  the  im- 
portance of  their  testimony,  is  now,  in  cases  in  which  they 
are  required,  as  customary  as  is  retaining  of  lawyers.  .  .  . 
Hence  it  is  that,  apart  from  the  partisan  temper  more  or 
less  common  to  experts,  their  utterances,  now  that  they 
have  as  a  class  become  the  retained  agents  of  parties,  have 
lost  all  judicial  authority,  and  are  entitled  only  to  the 
weight  which  a  sound  and  cautious  criticism  would  award 
to  the  testimony  itself.  In  adjusting  this  criticism,  a 
large  allowance  must  be  made  for  the  bias  necessarily 
belonging  to  men  retained  to  advocate  a  cause,  who  speak 
not  as  to  fact,  but  as  to  opinion;  who  are  selected  on  all 
moot  questions,  either  from  their  prior  advocacy  of,  or 
from  their  readiness  to  adopt  the  opinion  wanted.  In 
such  instances  we  are  inclined  to  adopt  the  strong  lan- 
guage of  Lord  Campbell,  that  "skilled  witnesses  come 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS  1 1 1 

with  such  a  bias  on  their  minds  to  support  the  cause  in 
which  they  are  embarked  that  hardly  any  weight  should 
be  given  to  their  evidence." 

In  general  debate,  also,  many  sources  once  con- 
sidered authoritative  are  no  longer  so.  The  Ro- 
man Catholic  Church  is  no  longer  an  authority  in 
law,  nor  the  Bible  in  science.  So,  in  the  discussion 
of  unsettled  problems,  the  opinions  of  the  most 
eminent  men  are  not  authority.  They  lack  the 
force  of  general  acceptance.  If,  for  example,  one 
is  arguing  in  favor  of  government  ownership  of 
interstate  railroads,  the  opinions  of  railway  attor- 
neys and  officials,  of  shippers,  of  members  of  Con- 
gress, of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  or 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  while  they 
may  be  used  as  corroborative  of  one's  argument, 
are  in  no  sense  authoritative.  Such  an  argument 
might  be  reduced  to  this  form :  "The  President  of 
the  United  States  favors  this  plan,  therefore  it 
should  be  adopted."  This  is  a  fallacy  frequently 
noticeable  in  student  debating.  If  the  opinions  of 
men,  however  prominent,  are  to  be  accepted  as 
proof  of  one's  case,  there  is  nothing  to  debate. 
You  cannot  win  a  debate  by  a  count  of  hands.  In 
most  questions,  the  average  American  auditor  re- 
serves the  right  of  individual  opinion  and  con- 
science, and  no  opinion  is  accepted  as  orthodox. 
The  reason  for  such  an  opinion  must  be  shown. 


112  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

On  the  other  hand,  whenever  a  question  under 
discussion  concerns  matters  wherein  authorities  ex- 
ist which  the  opposing  side  is  bound  to  recognize, 
the  use  of  the  argument  from  authority  still  has 
an  important  place.  Thus,  a  court  constitutes  an 
authority  on  points  of  law;  the  Bible,  on  re- 
ligious questions;  and  a  book  universally  ac- 
cepted as  authoritative  on  matters  within  its  par- 
ticular field  constitutes  an  authority  in  such  field — 
such  as  the  United  States  Pharmacopeia  regarding 
drugs.  The  main  work  of  the  debater,  in  such 
cases,  is  to  show  why  the  authority  is  good.  This 
the  lawyer  has  an  opportunity  of  doing,  in  the 
case  of  an  expert,  by  preliminary  questions.  Simi- 
larly, the  debater  must  explain,  in  a  few  words, 
just  why  an  authority  should  be  accepted,  and  also 
just  what  the  authority  states  on  the  point  in  ques- 
tion. 

Example  and  Analogy. — For  practical  pur- 
poses, example  and  analogy  may  be  classed  to- 
gether. In  example  we  argue  from  the  mere  simi- 
larity of  two  things  or  conditions;  in  analogy, 
from  the  similarity  of  their  relations.  In  com- 
mon usage,  too,  example  usually  refers  to  a  single 
resemblance,  analogy  to  a  series  of  examples.  In 
any  case  the  argument  from  example  and  anal- 
ogy is  an  argument  based  on  resemblances.  From 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS  113 

the  similarity  of  two  or  more  things  in  certain  par- 
ticulars, their  similarity  in  other  particulars  is  in- 
ferred. Thus,  the  earth  and  Mars  are  both  planets, 
nearly  equidistant  from  the  sun,  having  similar 
distribution  of  seas  and  continents,  alike  in  condi- 
tions of  humidity,  temperature,  seasons,  day  and 
night,  etc. ;  but  the  earth  also  supports  organic 
life;  hence — from  analogy — Mars  (probably) 
supports  organic  life.  Similarly,  we  infer  that 
what  has  happened  in  the  past  will,  under  similar 
conditions,  happen  again.  If  the  past  condition 
of  one  country,  economically  or  politically,  closely 
resembles  the  present  condition  of  another,  we  may 
use  the  history  of  the  one  country  to  prove  what 
we  wish  about  the  modern  condition;  that  is,  we 
can  judge  of  the  future,  as  Patrick  Henry  said, 
only  by  the  past.  This,  "argument  from  experi- 
ence," as  it  is  frequently  called,  is  more  or  less  em- 
ployed in  debating  current  political  and  govern- 
mental questions.  When  properly  used,  the  argu- 
ment is  very  effective,  for  "substantially  the  mode 
in  which  we  learn  a  new  thing  is  by  its  being  lik- 
ened to  something  that  we  already  know."  It  has 
been  said  that  all  reasoning  consists  ultimately  in 
inferences  from  experience.  Of  example  Burke 
says  that  it  is  "the  only  argument  of  effect  in  civil 
life";  that  it  is  "the  school  of  mankind,  and  they 
will  learn  at  no  other." 


114  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

When  one  or  more  examples  are  used  to  prove  a 
general  law,  this  is  sometimes  called  the  argument 
by  generalization.  Burke  thus  draws  an  inference 
from  individual  instances  to  prove  a  general  truth 
with  respect  to  the  whole  class  to  which  they  be- 
long— the  method  of  induction : 

In  large  bodies  the  circulation  of  power  must  be  less 
vigorous  at  the  extremities.  Nature  has  said  it.  The 
Turk  cannot  govern  Egypt  and  Arabia  and  Kurdistan  as 
he  governs  Thrace;  nor  has  he  the  same  dominion  in 
Crimea  and  Algiers  which  he  has  at  Brusa  and  Smyrna. 
Despotism  itself  is  obliged  to  truck  and  huckster.  The 
Sultan  gets  such  obedience  as  he  can.  He  governs  with  a 
loose  rein,  that  he  may  govern  at  all;  and  the  whole  of 
the  force  and  vigor  of  his  authority  in  his  center  is  de- 
rived from  a  prudent  relaxation  in  all  his  borders.  Spain, 
in  her  provinces,  is,  perhaps,  not  so  well  obeyed  as  you 
are  in  yours.  She  complies,  too;  she  submits;  she 
watches  times.  This  is  the  immutable  condition,  the 
eternal  law  of  extensive  and  detached  empire. 

A  favorite  and  effective  use  of  the  argument 
from  example  is  that  technically  known  as  a  for- 
tiori (all  the  stronger),  which  reasons  that  if  a 
certain  principle,  say,  is  true  in  a  given  case,  much 
more  is  it  true  in  the  case  under  discussion,  wherein 
the  conditions  are  more  favorable.  Many  passages 
in  Scripture  are  put  in  the  form  of  a  fortiori  argu- 
ment: 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS  115 

Wherefore  if  God  so  clothe  the  grass  which  to-day  is, 
and  to-morrow  is  cast  into  the  oven,  shall  he  not  much 
more  clothe  you,  O  ye  of  little  faith? — If  ye,  then,  being 
evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your  children, 
how  much  more  shall  your  Heavenly  Father  give  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  them  that  ask  Him. — Are  not  two  sparrows  sold 
for  a  farthing?  And  not  one  of  them  shall  fall  to  the 
ground  without  your  Father.  Fear  ye  not,  therefore,  ye 
are  of  more  value  than  many  sparrows. 

This  has  always  been  a  favorite  argument  of 
forensic  orators.  The  following  is  an  example 
from  Erskine's  speech  in  defense  of  Lord  George 
Gordon : 

But  it  seems  that  Lord  George  ought  to  have  fore- 
seen that  so  great  a  multitude  could  not  be  collected  with- 
out mischief.  Gentlemen,  we  are  not  trying  whether  he 
might  or  ought  to  have  foreseen  mischief,  but  whether  he 
wickedly  and  traitorously  preconcerted  and  designed  it. 
But  if  he  be  an  object  of  censure  for  not  foreseeing  it, 
what  shall  we  say  to  government  that  took  no  steps  to 
prevent  it,  that  issued  no  proclamation  warning  the  people 
of  the  danger  and  illegality  of  such  an  assembly?  If  a 
peaceable  multitude,  with  a  petition  in  their  hands,  be  an 
army,  and  if  the  noise  and  confusion  inseparable  from 
numbers,  though  without  violence  or  the  purpose  of  vio- 
lence, constitute  war,  what  shall  be  said  of  that  govern- 
ment which  remained  from  Tuesday  to  Friday,  knowing 
that  an  army  was  collecting  to  levy  war  by  public  adver- 
tisement, yet  had  not  a  single  soldier,  no,  nor  even  a  con- 
stable, to  protect  the  State?2 

2  Goodrich,  "British  Eloquence,"  p.  551. 


Il6  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

So  Burke,  in  his  speech  on  Conciliation,  cites 
four  "capital  examples" — constitutional  precedents 
in  favor  of  his  plan  of  dealing  with  the  American 
colonies — in  England's  treatment  of  Ireland, 
Wales,  Chester,  and  Durham,  and  thence  argues 
that  there  is  all  the  more  reason  for  employing  a 
similar  policy  in  the  case  of  America. 

Tests  of  the  Argument  from  Example  and  Anal- 
ogy.— In  the  employment  of  this  argument  the  re- 
semblances, in  order  to  be  of  any  probative  value, 
must  be  real,  and  they  must  correspond  to  the 
thing  or  matter  in  question  in  all  essential  particu- 
lars. These  tests  are  so  difficult  of  application 
that  examples  and  analogies,  unsupported  by  other 
evidence  or  argument,  are  rarely  convincing.  The 
method  is  therefore  chiefly  of  value  for  illustration 
of  an  argument  rather  than  for  argument  proper. 
"Almost  anything  can  be  established  by  a  simile, 
even  opposite  sides  of  the  same  question."  Un- 
less the  resemblance  be  real,  you  can,  to  quote  a  fa- 
vorite metaphor  of  Lincoln's,  "prove  a  horse  chest- 
nut to  be  a  chestnut  horse."  There  must  be  not 
only  a  resemblance  of  states,  but  also  of  condi- 
tions ;  not  only  must  relations  be  alike,  but  it  must 
be  shown  that  they  are  due  to  the  same  or  like 
causes.  The  following  summary  of  an  argument 
based  on  the  alleged  false  analogy  of  the  oppos- 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS  117 

ing  side  illustrates  the  caution  necessary  in  using 
this  kind  of  argument.  In  an  inter-literary  society 
debate  on  the  proposition  to  adopt  the  method  of 
compulsory  arbitration  in  the  settlement  of  dis- 
putes between  employers  and  labor  unions,  one 
speaker  on  the  affirmative  used  New  Zealand  as 
an  example  of  the  success  of  this  method,  and 
therefrom  argued  that  the  method  would  likewise 
prove  successful  in  the  United  States.  In  reply, 
the  negative  speaker  contended  that  this  was  a 
false  analogy,  closing  his  argument  as  follows : 

No  one  will  deny  that  to  justify  the  United  States  in 
adopting  any  plan  in  operation  in  a  foreign  country,  in- 
volving the  extension  of  governmental  functions,  all  three 
of  these  propositions  must  be  established:  (i)  That  the 
conditions,  governmental  and  industrial,  are  similar  to 
ours;  (2)  that  the  conditions  during  the  trial  of  the 
plan  have  been  sufficiently  varied  to  thoroughly  test  it  in 
all  its  phases;  (3)  that  the  plan  has  been  successful  dur- 
ing its  operation,  and  that  it  has  been  in  operation  a  suf- 
ficient length  of  time  to  leave  no  doubt  as  to  its  just  and 
effective  workings. 

Not  a  single  one  of  these  three  essential  propositions 
have  we  found  applicable  while  considering  the  question 
as  to  adopting  a  compulsory  arbitration  plan  on  the 
strength  of  governmental  attempts  in  New  Zealand;  for 
we  have  shown  that  the  United  States  and  New  Zealand 
are  diametrically  different  in  government  and  industry; 
that  the  law  has  been  in  operation  only  during  a  brief 
period  of  unusual  prosperity  occasioned  by  increased  ex- 
ports, and  that  even  then  strikes  have  occurred,  industries 


1 1  8  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

closed,  seventeen  thousand  breadwinners  out  of  employ- 
ment, while  commercial  banks  are  glutted  with  money,  a 
quarter  of  a  billion  dollars  being  out  of  use;  and  further, 
that  the  very  authors  of  the  plan  confess  it  to  be  a  mere 
experiment. 

Hence,  as  New  Zealand  is  the  only  country  that  even 
claims  to  have  operated  a  compulsory  arbitration  plan,  we 
must  inevitably  conclude  that  governmental  attempts  at 
compulsory  arbitration  do  not  justify  the  adoption  of -the 
proposed  plan  in  the  United  States. 

It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  reasoning  from 
analogy  the  resemblance  must  always  be  an  essen- 
tial one — it  must  apply  to  the  point  under  discus- 
sion. The  following  illustrations  will  make  this 
clear.  We  find  many  points  of  resemblance  be- 
tween the  earth  and  the  moon,  but  we  cannot,  infer 
therefrom  that  there  are  living  creatures  on  the 
moon,  since  the  moon  has  no  atmosphere,  and  we 
know  that  air  is  an  indispensable  condition  of  life. 
The  construction  of  an  argument  resembles,  in 
many  respects,  that  of  a  frame  house;  but  it  does 
not  follow  that  everything  true  of  the  house  is  true 
of  the  argument.  Again,  take  the  somewhat  com- 
mon comparison  of  a  nation  with  an  individual: 
nations,  it  is  said,  like  individuals,  have  youth, 
manhood,  the  decline  of  old  age,  and  death.  But 
the  resemblance  fails  in  the  one  essential  point — 
physical  organization.  So,  "Carlyle's  saying  that 
a  ship  could  never  be  taken  around  Cape  Horn  if 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS  119 

the  crew  were  consulted  every  time  the  captain 
proposed  to  alter  the  course,  if  taken  seriously  as 
an  analogical  argument  against  representative  gov- 
ernment, is  open  to  the  objection  that  the  differences 
betw.een  a  ship  and  a  state  are  too  great  for  any 
argument  from  the  one  to  the  other  to  be  of 
value."  3 

On  the  other  hand,  there  may  be  many  points 
of  dissimilarity,  but  if  there  be  a  resemblance  in  the 
essential  particulars  the  argument  is  good  and,  es- 
pecially with  a  popular  audience,  very  effective. 
For  example:  Horses  and  generals  are  unlike  in 
themselves  and  in  their  relations  in  many  ways; 
but  Lincoln's  oft-quoted  saying,  in  reply  to  poli- 
ticians advising  him  to  change  generals  at  a  certain 
time  during  the  Civil  War,  that  he  deemed  it  un- 
wise to  "swap  horses  while  crossing  a  stream," 
was  a  valid  argument  in  that  horses  bore  the  same 
relation  to  crossing  a  stream  as  generals  did  to 
prosecuting  the  war.  Again,  when  Patrick  Henry 
said,  uCaeser  had  his  Brutus,  Charles  I  his  Crom- 
well, and  George  III  may  profit  by  their  example," 
the  "example"  applied  to  George  III  in  perhaps 
only  one  respect,  but  that  the  essential  element — 
the  effect  of  tyranny  upon  a  liberty-loving  people. 

The  following  incident4  in  a  trial  at  law  illus- 

8  Mill,  "System  of  Logic,"  p.  332. 

4  Adapted  from  Alden's  "Art  of  Debate,"  p.  179. 


120  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

trates  both  good  and  bad  analogy.  An  action  for 
damages  was  brought  against  a  railroad  company 
whose  conductor  had  refused  a  ticket  reading 

"From  A to   B ,"   when   the  passenger 

holding  the  ticket  was  traveling  from  B to 

A .      The    attorney   for  the   railroad   argue^J 

that  the  passenger  was  really  claiming  a  different 
service  from  that  he  had  paid  for;  that  he  might 
as  well  buy  a  barrel  of  potatoes  at  a  grocery,  and 
then  sue  the  grocer  on  the  ground  that  he  did  not 
deliver  apples  instead.  In  reply,  the  attorney  for 
the  plaintiff  argued  that  the  cases  would  be  more 
closely  analogous  if,  instead  of  the  illustration 
given,  the  grocer,  having  sold  the  man  a  barrel  of 
apples,  insisted  that  he  should  begin  at  the  top  and 
eat  down,  whereas  the  purchaser  should  have  a 
preference  for  beginning  at  the  bottom  and  eat- 
ing up ! 

However,  it  should  constantly  be  borne  in  mind 
that  so-called  examples  and  analogies  readily 
shade  off  into  mere  illustrations.  Illustrations  are 
good  to  illuminate  an  argument,  and  are  to  be 
frequently  employed  for  this  purpose,  but  they  are 
not  argument,  and  great  caution  is  needed  in  their 
use.  If  real  resemblance  is  lacking,  or  if  the  re- 
semblance fails  in  the  essential  particular,  a  fine 
opening  is  left  for  the  opposing  side.  It  has  well 
been  said  that  "example  and  analogy  are  of  value 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS  121 

mainly  in  those  cases  where  the  parallel  conditions 
are  broad  and  easily  traced,  and  where  the  object 
is  to  make  an  argument  at  once  simple  and  impres- 
sive. They  are  best  applied  to  those  general  truths 
wh,kh  do  not  require  to  be  verified  so  much  as  to 
be  illustrated;  their  office,  even  in  argument,  is 
mainly  expository."5 

The  Method  of  Residues. — This  name  is  given 
to  that  form  of  argument  wherein  all  possible 
ways  of  dealing  with  the  question  are  enumerated, 
and  then  showing  that  only  one  way  is  correct.  It 
is  a  "boiling  down"  process,  sometimes  also  called 
the  argument  of  "logical  exclusion."  In  science 
it  is  "an  argument  in  which,  after  showing  that  all 
causes  but  one  are  insufficient  to  account  for  a  phe- 
nomenon, it  is  urged  that  the  one  remaining  cause 
must  be  the  true  one."  The  method  is,  then,  a 
process  of  reasoning  by  tests.  The  debater  points 
out  certain  determining  principles,  certain  limiting 
conditions,  or  depicts  some  prominent  features  of 
the  case  in  point,  and  makes  these  representative 
or  determinative  of  the  whole  case.  Whenever  a 
question  lends  itself  to  this  method  of  treatment, 
it  is,  by  reason  of  its  broadness  and  comprehensive- 
ness, a  very  effective  plan  of  procedure.  It  will  be 

1  Genung,  "Practical  Rhetoric,"  p.  423. 


122  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

seen  that  it  is  in  reality  a  mixed  method  of  refu- 
tation and  direct  proof,  refutation  preceding  and 
leading  to  the  direct  argument.  Following  is  an 
example  from  a  brief  of  the  question,  "Resolved, 
that  the  deportation  of  all  negroes  in  this  coi|ntry 
to  one  of  our  island  possessions  offers  the  best  so 
lution  of  the  race  problem:" 

I  think  it  will  be  agreed  that  the  following  plans  ex- 
haust the  possible  schemes  for  the  solution  of  our  race 
problem:  (i)  Educate  the  negro  and  recognize  him  as 
an  equal  co-citizen,  fraternizing  with  him.  (2)  Let  the 
two  races  amalgamate  and  become  one  race.  (3)  Let  the 
negro  remain  a  co-citizen  in  name,  but  in  reality  an  in- 
ferior, a  servant  and  a  slave.  (4)  Deport  the  negro  to 
our  island  possessions,  and  with  government  aid  let  him 
work  out  his  own  salvation. 

After  showing  that  the  first  three  plans  offer  no 
solution  to  the  problem,  and  that  the  last  plan  does, 
the  following  conclusion  is  reached: 

Since  to  educate  the  negro  and  recognize  him  as  an 
equal  is  not  a  possible  solution  of  the  race  problem,  be- 
cause of  his  mental  inferiority  and  his  physical  make-up; 
and  since  the  amalgamation  of  the  races  is  odious  and  im- 
possible; and  since  to  let  the  negro  remain  a  co-citizen  in 
name  and  a  slave  in  reality  is  dangerous  to  our  govern- 
ment, because  it  creates  strife,  class  distinction,  and  loss 
of  respect  for  law;  and  since  the  possible  solution  left  is 
practical,  because  it  has  been  tried  in  the  past,  because 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS  123 

the  negro  is  not  commercially  necessary  to  the  South,  and 
because  it  gives  a  final  solution  of  the  race  problem, 
therefore  the  negroes  should  be  deported  to  our  island 
possessions. 


example  of  this  form  of  argument  oc- 
4prs  in  Burke's  speech  on  "Conciliation  with 
America"  :  % 

Sir,  if  I  were  capable  of  engaging  you  to  an  equal  at- 
tention, I  would  state  that,  as  far  as  I  am  capable  of  dis- 
cerning, there  are  but  three  ways  of  proceeding  relative 
to  this  stubborn  spirit  which  prevails  in  your  colonies,  and 
disturbs  your  government.  These  are  —  to  change  that 
spirit,  as  inconvenient,  by  removing  the  causes;  to  prose- 
cute it  as  criminal  ;  or  to  comply  with  it  as  necessary.  I 
would  not  be  guilty  of  an  imperfect  enumeration;  I  can 
think  of  but  these  three.  Another  has  indeed  been 
started,  —  that  of  giving  up  the  colonies;  but  it  met  so 
slight  a  reception  that  I  do  not  think  myself  obliged  to 
dwell  a  great  while  upon  it.  It  is  nothing  but  a  little 
sally  of  anger,  like  the  frowardness  of  peevish  children, 
who,  when  they  cannot  get  all  they  would  have,  are  re- 
solved to  take  nothing. 

Burke  then  argues  that  the  first  two  plans  are 
impracticable,  and  summarizes  as  follows  : 

If,  then,  the  removal  of  the  causes  of  this  spirit  of 
American  liberty  be  for  the  greater  part,  or  rather  en- 
tirely, impracticable;  if  the  ideas  of  criminal  process  be 
inapplicable  —  or,  if  applicable,  are  in  the  highest  degree 
inexpedient;  what  way  yet  remains?  No  way  is  open 


124  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

but  the  third  and  last — to  comply  with  the  American 
spirit  as  necessary;  or,  if  you  please,  so  submit  to  it  as  a 
necessary  evil.  \ 

Tests  of  the  Method  of  Residues. — For  the  ef- 
fective use  of  this  method,  ( i )  all  possible  ^e 
or  solutions  must  be  enumerated;  (2)  all  aspe 
but  the  alleged  tru^one  must  be  destroyed ; .  and 
(3)  the  alleged  true  one  must  be  affirmatively  es- 
tablished. All  the  alternatives  should  be  carefully 
classified,  and  as  limited  in  number  as  possible; 
but  at  the  same  time  the  enumeration  must  be  ex- 
haustive, that  is,  it  must  not  overlook  any  essential 
consideration,  and  herein  lies  the  great  danger 
in  the  use  of  this  method.  The  preceding  example 
from  Burke  is,  in  fact,  open  to  the  objection  of 
the  "imperfect  enumeration"  which  he  sought  to 
avoid — or,  rather,  to  an  undue  slighting  of  the 
plan  mentioned  by  way  of  an  afterthought  and  not 
considered  in  his  subsequent  argument,  "that  of 
giving  up  the  colonies." 


KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS  125 

EXERCISES. 

What  kind  of  argument  is  used  in  each  of  the  following  ex- 
amples? Point  out  any  fallacies  in  the  reasoning.  (Note  that 
some  of  the  examples  may  not  be  readily  classified  under  the 
special  kinds  of  arguments  dealt  with  in  this  chapter.  In  such 
cases  any  fallacy  may  usually  be  detected  by  reducing  the  state- 
ments to  syllogistic  form.) 

1.  The  consensus  of  opinion  among  the  American  people  is  that 
trusts  are  assuming  threatening  proportions;    that  some  method 
should  be  devised  whereby  the  general  Government  shall   limit 
their  power.     It  is  to  be  presumed,  therefore,  that  a  trust  is  an 
economic  evil ;    and  such  presumption,  in  turn,  carries  with  it  the 
further  presumption  that  there  is  a  remedy  for  such  evil. 

2.  It  is  our  duty  to  retain  possession  of  the  Philippine  Islands, 
for  the  Report  of  the  Philippine  Commission  so  declares. 

3.  The  pjovernment  of  India  by  England  has  proved  a  losing 
financial  venture;    therefore  we  may  expect  the  same  will  prove 
true  of  the  government  of  the  Philippines  by  America. 

4.  We  have  had  a  period  of  general  prosperity  under  the  op- 
eration of  a  protective  tariff.     We  must  therefore  conclude  that 
protection  is  a  good  thing  for  this  country. 

5.  One  of  three  principles  must  be  applied   in  inflicting  pun- 
ishment for  crime:    (i)   Revenge  on  the  criminal;     (2)   the  pro- 
tection of  society;    or  (3)   the  reform  of  the  criminal.     The  first 
is   inhuman,   the    second    can    be    accomplished    in    applying   the 
third.    Therefore  the  reform  of  the  criminal  should  be  the  object 
of  all  penal  legislation;    and  if  this  be  true,  capital  punishment 
should  be  abolished,  for  how  can  you  reform  a  dead  man? 

6.  If  we  can  show  that  a  large  majority  of  successful  business 
men  are  college  graduates,  is  not  the  inference  plain  that  a  col- 
lege education  prepares  one  for  a  business  career? 

7.  "Walter   McMillan   will   serve  as   a   good   illustration  of  a 
young  man  who  'woke  up'.     He  was  employed  as  a  clerk  by  the 
Armour  Packing  Company  of  Kansas  City,  with  nothing  in  pros- 
pect but  his  desk  with  its  endless  drudgery.     He  read  the  signs 
correctly,   and  after  careful   investigation  decided  that  the  Chi- 
cane College  of  Advertising  could  give  him  the  thorough,  prac- 
tical advertising  education  he  craved.     Almost  immediately  after 
completing  the  course  he  was  referred  by  the  college  to  the  Kan- 
sas City  Journal,  where  he  started  at  just  four  times  the  salary 
he  was  receiving  in  his  former  position.    He  is  there  to-day  and 


126  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

has  been  still  further  advanced.    What  Mr.  McMillan  has  done 
you  can  do." 

8.  Dr.  John  Smith's  Soothing  Syrup  has  been  used  for  over  fifty 
years  by  millions  of  mothers  for  their  children,  while  teething, 
with   perfect   success.     All   mothers   having   children   which   are 
teething  should  use  it. 

9.  Mr.   Clarence  Darrow,  the  lawyer  who  won  great  distinc- 
tion as  counsel  for  the  United  Mine  Workers'  Union  before  the 
Anthracite    Coal    Strike    Commission,    is    representing    the    street 
car  employees  in  the  Chicago  trouble.     We  may  therefore  look 
for  an  amicable  settlement  of  the  latter  strike  in  the  near  future. 

10.  All  criminal  actions  ought  to  be  punished  by  law-     Prose- 
cutions  for  theft   are  criminal    actions.     Therefore,    prosecutions 
for  theft  ought  to  be  punished  by  law. 

11.  Nations,  like  individuals,  are  born,  flourish  and  decay.    We 
may  therefore  infer  the  ultimate  downfall  of  this  Republic. 

12.  Of   course   you    ought    to   be    good,    for   you    belong   to    a 
church  and  go  to  prayer-meeting;    but  I  make  no  professions. 

13.  Written  examinations  are  not  an  absolutely  fair  test  of  a 
student's  scholarship — much  less  of  his  industry  and  intelligence. 
It  is  therefore  wrong  to  base  his  grade  upon  them. 

14.  I  am  justified  in  passing  this  counterfeit  money.     The  pub- 
lic gave  it  to  me  and  the  public  ought  to  get  it  back  again. 

15.  Everybody  ought  to  contribute  something  to  the  support  of 
the    unfortunate;     therefore   there    is   no   harm   in   a    law   which 
compels  him  to  do  so. 

16.  We  all  drank  this  water  and  none  of  us  became  sick;    so 
this  outcry  about  the  danger  of  typhoid  is  all  nonsense. 

17.  The  people  who  say  that  athletic  victories  do  not  increase 
the  attendance  at  a  school   are  mistaken.     In  the  last  six  years 
we  have  beaten  our  main   rival   in  football   five  times;     and   in 
that  period  the  number  of  students  here  has  increased  from  750 
to  1,200. 

1 8.  The   referendum   has   been   tried   in   Switzerland    and   has 
worked  well  for  a  number  of  years ;    we  may  therefore  reason- 
ably expect  that  it  would  work  well  in  the  United  States. 

19.  Trains   run   with  Blank's  oil   have  made  the  fastest  time 
in  railway  records. 

20.  One  of  two  things  is  true — either  the  laws  of  the  Union 
are  beyond  the  control  of  the  States,  or  else  we  have  no  Consti- 
tution of  general  government,  and  are  thrust  back  again  to  the 
days  of  the  Confederation. — Webster. 


CHAPTER  VI 

• 

REFUTATION 

Refutation  consists  in  the  destruction  of  oppos- 
ing arguments.  It  may  be  either  direct  or  indirect. 
When  a  speaker  meets  objections  to  his  argument, 
it  is  direct  refutation;  when  he  produces  an  ar- 
gument to  supplant  that  offered  against  him, 
that  is  indirect  refutation.  Refutation,  therefore, 
is  not  only  destructive,  in  the  sense  of  detaching 
separate  points  for  answer,  it  is  also  constructive. 
It  may  meet  a  given  plan  by  showing  that  another 
plan  is  better;  it  may  meet  the  other  side  as  a 
whole  by  proving  one's  own  side  as  a  whole  is 
ftr^mger.  And  such  indirect  refutation  is  the  more 
tffective.  Negative  argument  alone  is  rarely  suf- 
ncient.  Belief  is  essentially  positive;  hence  the 
lest  refutation  not  only  tears  down,  but  also  builds 
fp — supplies  something  better  than  the  thing  de- 
stroyed. In  debating  a  question  of  policy,  for  ex- 
ample, unanswered  objections  to  a  proposed  solu- 
tion for  existing  evils  would  fulfill  the  require- 
ments of  pure  logic,  but  it  would  not  meet  the 
requirements  of  the  average  audience.  If  the 

(127) 


128  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

opponent  of  the  proposed  plan  can  go  further,  and 
show  a  better  plan,  his  case  is  infinitely  strength- 
ened. 

Effective  refutation,  usually  the  most  difficulty 
branch  of  argumentation  for  a  student  to  master, 
depends  upon  following  pretty  closely  these  two 
rules  :  ( i )  Clearly  analyze  your  opponents'  argu- 
ments, and  (2)  Answer  only  the  strong  arguments 
against  you. 

i.  Since  refutation  is  either  the  destruction  or 
overbalancing  of  an  opponent's  proof,  the  debater 
must  always  recognize,  first,  that  there  Is  an  op- 
posing side,  and,  secondly, — when  he  is  upholding 
the  negative, — that  the  opponent  is  already  in  pos- 
session of  the  field.     It  will  not  do,  therefore,  in 
either  the  preparation  or  progress  of  the  debate,  to 
ignore  the  arguments  against  you.     In  the  course^ 
of  preparation  the  successful  debater  will  always 
learn  the  strong  and  weak  points  of  the  other  side, 
as  well  as  those  of  his  own  side.    He  will  be  ready? 
not  only  to  defend  himself  against  attack,  but  will 
have  decided  upon  a  line  of  refutation  to  meet  eacn 
one  of  several  lines  of  argument  that  may  be  ofj 
fered   by   his   opponent.      The   first   requirement^ 
then,  of  successful  refutation  is  to  study  the  otheij 
side;   and  then,  in  actual  debate,  to  state  clearly — ^ 
more    clearly,    if    possible,    than    your    opponen^ 
states  it — the  proof  produced  against  you.     "The 


REFUTATION  129 

case  of  my  opponent,"  the  debater  replies, 
"amounts  to  this;"  or,  "In  the  argument  of  my  op- 
ponent, we  may  for  the  present  waive  all  but  the 
third  point."  The  statement  of  the  opponent's 
case  must  of  course  be  honest,  comprehensive,  and 
fair,  and  it  must  appear  to  be  so  to  the  hearers. 
A  study  of  masterpieces  in  argumentation  will 
show  how  great  debaters  have  acted  on  this  prin- 
ciple. It  is  said  that  the  success  of  Lincoln  and 
Webster  in  legal  arguments  was  due  largely  to 
their  handling  of  the  opponent's  case.  As  bearing 
on  both  of  the  rules  above  laid  down,  Lincoln's 
method  is  thus  described  by  a  member  of  the  Chi- 
cago bar: 

He  was  wise  in  knowing  what  to  attempt  and  what  to 
let  alone.  He  was  fair  to  the  court,  the  jury,  and  his 
adversary;  candor  compels  me  to  say,  however,  that  he 
by  practice  learned  there  was  power  in  this.  As  he  en- 
tered the  trial,  where  most  lawyers  object  he  said  he 
"reckoned"  it  would  be  fair  to  admit  this  or  that;  and 
sometimes  when  his  adversary  could  not  prove  what  Lin- 
coln knew  to  be  the  truth,  he  said  he  "reckoned"  it  would 
be  fair  to  admit  the  truth  to  be  so  and  so.  When  he  did 
object  to  a  ruling  of  the  court  and  such  objection  was 
overruled,  he  would  often  say,  "Well,  I  reckon  I  must  be 
wrong."  Now,  about  the  time  he  had  practiced  this 
three-quarters  through  the  case,  if  his  adversary  did  not 
understand  him  he  would  wake  up  rinding  that  he  had 
feared  the  Greeks  too  late.  When  the  whole  thing  was 


130  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

unraveled  the  adversary  began  to  see  that  what  Lincoln 
was  so  blandly  giving  away  was  simply  what  he  could 
not  get  and  keep.  By  giving  away  six  points  and  carry- 
ing the  seventh  he  carried  his  case;  the  whole  case  hang- 
ing on  the  seventh,  he  traded  everything  off  which  would 
not  aid  him  in  carrying  that  vital  point. 

In  his  Reply  to  Hayne  Webster  thus  states  the 
arguments  adduced  against  him : 

I    understand    the    honorable    gentleman    from    South 
Carolina  to  maintain  that  it  is  a  right  of  the  State  legis- 
latures  to   interfere   whenever,    in    their   judgment,    this 
Government  transcends  its  constitutional  limits,  and  to  ar- 
rest the  operation  of  its  laws.     I  understand  him  to  main- 
tain this  right  as  a  right  existing  under  the  Constitution, 
not  as  a  right  to  overthrow  it  on  the  ground  of  extreme 
necessity,  such  as  would  justify  revolution.     I  understand 
him  to  maintain  an  authority,  on  the  part  of  the  States, 
thus  to  interfere  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  the  exercisev 
by  the  general  Government,  of  checking  it,  and  of  com- 
pelling it  to  conform  to  their  opinion  of  the  extent  of  its" 
powers.     I  understand  him  to  maintain  that  the  ultimate 
power  of  judging  of  the  constitutional  extent  of  its  ow 
authority  is  not  lodged  exclusively  in  the  general  Govern> 
ment  or  any  branch  of  it;   but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the' 
States    may    lawfully    decide    for   themselves,    and    eacrX 
State  for  itself,  whether,  in  a  given  case,  the  act  of  th£^ 
general  Government  transcends  its  power.     I  understany^ 
him   to   insist   that   if   the   exigency   of   the   case,    in   the 
opinion  of  any  State  Government,  require  it,  such  State 
Government  may,  by  its  own  sovereign  authority,  annul 
an  act  of  the  general  Government  which  it  cleems  plainly 


REFUTATION  131 

and  palpably  unconstitutional.  This  is  the  sum  of  what 
I  understand  from  him  to  be  the  South  Carolina  doc- 
trine, and  the  doctrine  which  he  maintains.  I  propose  to 
consider  it,  and  compare  it  with  the  Constitution.1 

2.  The  stated  analysis  of  your  opponent's  ar- 
^gument  leads  naturally  to  the  second  step  in  refu- 
^tation — answering  the  strong  arguments  against 
^  you.  And  only  the  strong  opposing  arguments  are 
%  to  be  answered.  While  there  is  great  danger  in  re- 
%  futing  too  little,  there  is  the  still  greater  danger  of 

*  refuting  too  much.     The  typically  clumsy  debater 
takes  up  his  refutation  by  rehearsing  a  long  list 

^of  "points"  that  he  has  noted  down  for  the  pur- 
e  pose  of  answering.  Many  of  these  are  wholly  ir- 
%  relevant,  or  at  best  they  are  of  little  argumentative 

•  force,   and  the   rehearsal  of  these   "points"   only 

•  serves  to  emphasize  them  unduly  to  the  minds  of 

*  the  hearers.     "The  speaker  who  hurls  a  ponderous 
4  refutation  at  a  weak  argument  is  like  a  builder  who 

should  erect  a  huge  derrick  in  order  to  lift  a  small 
stone;  people  would  infer  that  the  stone  must  be 
much  heavier  than  it  looks."2  In  this  sort  of  refu- 
tation the  debater  only  dissipates  his  energies  and 
scatters  his  forces.  This  scattering  method  natur- 
ally gives  his  argument  a  scattering  effect.  His 

1  "The  Great  Debates,"  Riverside  Series,  p.  182. 

2  Clark,  "Practical  Rhetoric,"  p.  297. 


132  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

refutation  is  a  series  of  pop-gun  shots  all  about  his 
enemy's    intrenchments,    without   sending   a   solid 
shot  at  any  vital  part.     Effective  refutation   (and 
direct  argument  as  well)  does  not  consist  in  enum- 
erating "points,"  but  rather  in  aiming  at  points 
vital  to  the  issue.     "Refutation  is  not  a  DonnyJ 
brook  Fair;   don't  hit  every  head  you  see,  but  airrL 
at  the  leaders."3    Just  as  in  the  analysis  of  a  ques-^ 
tion  to  determine  the  issues  extraneous  matter  is 
excluded,  so  in  refutation  the  debater  must  subor-^ 
dinate   the   less   important   and   strike   at  central^ 
ideas. 

Now,  an  opponent's  arguments,  for  the  purpose 
of  refutation,  may  be  roughly  divided  into  these^ 
four  classes:     (i)    Those  which  may  safely  and 
properly  be  admitted  as  true.     Admit  them.     (2)^ 
Those  which  are  beside  the  point,  having  no  argu-f 
mentative    force — including   statements    made    in-g 
advertantly,    mere    slips    of    memory,     and    the^ 
like.     Ignore  these,   or  at  the  most  brush  them 
aside  with  a  sentence  or  two.     (3)  Those  having 
some  bearing  on  the  question,  but  more  or  less  re- 
motely related  to  it.     Answer  these  briefly,  if  time 
permits.      (4)    Those  bearing  directly  on  the  is- 
sues— the   really   strong   arguments    against  you. 
Answer  these  first  and  foremost. 

3  Baker  and  Huntington,  "Principles  of  Argumentation,"  p.  174- 


REFUTATION  133 

To  refute,  then,  one  must  detect  the  weak  places, 
or  gaps,  in  an  opposing  argument,  and  aim  at 
them.  Such  gaps  are  known  as  fallacies.  The 
possible  fallacies  in  the  kinds  of  arguments  already 
considered  have  impliedly  been  pointed  out.  By 
way  of  recapitulation,  one  may  refute  actual  or 
alleged  facts  by  showing  either  that,  the  facts  as 
alleged  being  admitted,  wrong  inferences  are 
drawn  from  them,  or  that  the  facts  in  the  case 
are  not  as  alleged;  the  argument  of  antecedent 
probability,  by  showing  that  the  assigned  cause 
was  inadequate  to  produce  the  result  alleged,  or 
that  there  are  so  many  causes  involved  that  the 
given  effect  cannot  be  attributed  solely  to  the  cause 
alleged;  the  argument  from  sign,  by  showing  that 
the  fact  alleged  as  the  result  of  the  fact  in  dis- 
pute either  did  not  exist  or  that  it  is  evidently  not 
a  sign  of  the  disputed  fact;  the  argument  from 
authority,  by  showing  that  the  authority  cited  is 
either  not  competent  or  that  there  are  other  and 
better  authorities;  the  argument  by  example  and 
analogy,  by  showing  that  examples  and  analogies 
used  by  an  opponent  do  not  resemble,  in  essential 
particulars,  the  points  in  dispute;  the  method  of 
residues,  by  showing  either  that  all  the  possible 
aspects  of  the  question  were  not  enumerated,  or 
that  all  the  aspects  but  the  alleged  true  one  were 
not  disproved,  or  that  the  alleged  true  aspect  was 
not  satisfactorily  established. 


134  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

SPECIAL  METHODS  OF  REFUTATION 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  ways  of  exposing 
fallacies,  the  following  special  methods  of  refu- 
tation may  be  noted :  ( i )  Reductio  ad  Absurdum, 
(2)  Dilemma,  (3)  Amplifying  and  Diminishing. 

I.  Reductio  ad  Absurdum. — One  of  the  most 
commonly  used  methods  of  refutation  is  that  of 
reducing  an  argument  to  an  absurdity,  or,  as  it  is 
named,  the  reductio  ad  absurdum — a  term  bor- 
rowed from  geometrical  demonstration.  By  this 
method,  the  refuter  assumes  for  the  moment  that 
a  given  proposition  is  true,  and  then  points  out  the 
absurd  results  to  which  it  leads.  The  method  may 
of  course  be  used  as  to  the  main  question  under  dis- 
cussion, or  as  to  any  particular  proposition  ad- 
vanced by  an  opponent.  Following  in  a  classic 
example  from  Webster's  Reply  to  Hayne : 

And  now,  Mr.  President,  let  me  run  the  honorable 
gentleman's  doctrine  a  little  into  its  practical  applica- 
tion. Let  us  look  at  his  probable  modus  opemndi.  If  a 
thing  can  be  done,  an  ingenious  man  can  tell  how  it  is 
to  be  done,  and  I  wish  to  be  informed  how  this  State  in- 
terference is  to  be  put  in  practice  without  violence,  blood- 
shed, and  rebellion.  We  will  take  the  existing  case  of 
the  tariff  law.  South  Carolina  is  said  to  have  made  up 
her  opinion  upon  it.  If  we  do  not  repeal  it  (as  we  prob- 
ably shall  not),  she  will  then  apply  to  the  case  the  remedy 
of  her  doctrine.  She  will,  we  must  suppose,  pass  a  law  of 
her  legislature  declaring  the  several  acts  of  Congress, 


REFUTATION  135 

usually  called  the  tariff  laws,  null  and  void,  so  far  as 
they  respect  South  Carolina  or  the  citizens  thereof.  So 
far,  all  is  a  paper  transaction,  and  easy  enough.  But  the 
collector  at  Charleston  is  collecting  the  duties  imposed 
by  these  tariff  laws.  He,  therefore,  must  be  stopped. 
The  collector  will  seize  the  goods  if  the  tariff  duties  are 
not  paid.  The  State  authorities  will  undertake  their 
rescue.  The  marshal,  with  his  posse,  will  come  to  the 
collector's  aid,  and  here  the  contest  begins.  The  militia 
of  the  State  will  be  called  out  to  sustain  the  nullifying 
act.  They  will  march,  sir,  under  a  very  gallant  leader, 
for  I  believe  the  honorable  member  himself  commands 
the  militia  in  that  part  of  the  State.  He  will  raise  the 
nullifying  act  on  his  standard  and  spread  it  out  as  his 
banner.  It  will  have  a  preamble,  setting  forth  that  the 
tariff  laws  are  palpable,  deliberate,  and  dangerous  viola- 
tions of  the  Constitution!  He  will  proceed,  with  his 
banner  flying,  to  the  custom-house  in  Charleston, 

"All  the  while, 
Sonorous  metal  blowing  martial  sounds." 

Arrived  at  the  custom-house,  he  will  tell  the  collector  that 
he  must  collect  no  more  duties  under  any  of  the  tariff 
laws.  .  .  .  But,  sir,  the  collector  would  not,  probably, 
desist  at  his  bidding.  He  would  show  him  the  law  of 
Congress,  the  Treasury  instruction,  and  his  own  oath  of 
office.  He  would  say  he  should  perform  his  duty,  come 
what  might.  .  .  .  Direct  collision,  therefore,  between 
force  and  force  is  the  unavoidable  result  of  that  remedy 
for  the  revision  of  unconstitutional  laws  which  the  gentle- 
man contends  for.  It  must  happen  in  the  very  first  case 
to  which  it  is  applied.4 

4  "The  Great  Debate,"  pp.  208-211. 


136  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

A  form  of  the  reductio  ad  absurdum  is  that  of 
"enforcing  the  consequences,"  or,  as  we  commonly 
say,  such  and  such  an  argument  "proves  too  much." 
It  proves  not  only  its  own  conclusion,  but  also  one 
or  more  others  which  are  absurd.  The  refuter 
shows  that  an  opponent's  argument  leads  to  unde- 
sirable conditions  or  results  over  and  beyond  the 
matter  under  immediate  discussion.  Thus,  in  the 
debate  in  the  United  States  Senate  relative  to  the 
Philippine  question,  in  1900,  replying  to  the  argu- 
ment of  Senator  Beveridge,  that  to  establish  a 
good  colonial  government  abroad  would  stimulate 
good  government  at  home,  Senator  Hoar  said: 

If  I  understood  him  correctly,  he  said  also  that  he 
thought  it  was  not  necessary  to  wait  until  we  could  get 
the  very  best  of  government  here,  but  if  we  established  it 
abroad  under  some  commissioners  to  be  appointed  by  some 
executive  authority,  they  would  govern  so  well  that  they 
would  furnish  a  good  example  for  us  at  home,  and  we 
should  improve.  I  suppose,  though  he  did  not  say  it, 
that  he  thinks  also  we  had  better  not  have  free  speech 
here  in  the  United  States  Senate  until  they  have  got  it 
out  among  the  Filipinos,  to  see  whether  it  works  there, 
and  then  it  may  come  back  to  us  in  a  way  which  would 
gradually  permit  us  to  use  it  here,  in  a  sort  of  diluted 
form. 

The  reductio  ad  absurdum  is  the  most  com- 
monly used,  perhaps,  of  all  the  methods  of  refuta- 


REFUTATION  137 

tion.  By  reason  of  its  simplicity  and  directness, 
together  with  a  flavor  of  humor  that  frequently  ac- 
companies its  use,  the  method  is,  when  well  con- 
ceived and  carried  out,  very  effective. 

2.  The  Dilemma. — The  dilemma,  which  is  one 
of  the  oldest  of  all  known  rhetorical  forms,  is  a 
special  form  of  the  reductio  ad  absurdum.  It 
arises  when  one  can  show  that  an  opponent's  po- 
sition must  lead  to  two  alternate  results,  and  can 
then  show  the  absurdity  of  both  of  these  results. 
The  opponent  is  thus  placed,  as  is  commonly  said, 
"between  the  horns  of  a  dilemma."  "As  to  the 
points  at  issue,"  the  refuter  says,  "there  are  but 
two  possibilities;  namely,  A  and  B.  A  is  not  true, 
and  B  is  not  true;  hence  your  contention  falls." 
Two  or  three  examples  will  show  the  method  in 
actual  use. 

A  professor  in  a  theological  seminary  was  re- 
cently charged  with  heresy.  An  editorial  in  the 
official  organ  of  his  church,  urging  his  removal, 
says: 

Either  Professor believes  what  he  has  printed, 

or  he  does  not.  If  he  does,  his  sentiments  disqualify  him 
for  the  position  he  now  holds;  if  he  does  not  believe,  his 
indiscretion  disqualifies  him.  Any  claim  from  any  quarter 
that  he  should  remain  impeaches  either  his  sense  or  his 
morality. 


138  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

Colonel  Abraham  Davenport,  so  the  story  runs, 
sat  in  the  Governor's  Council  at  Hartford  on  the 
extraordinary  dark  day  of  May  19,  1780,  when 
chickens  went  to  roost  in  the  morning,  and  when 
the  Day  of  Judgment  was  thought  to  be  at  hand. 
It  was  therefore  proposed  to  adjourn  the  Council, 
whereupon  the  Colonel  said : 

The  Day  of  Judgment  is  at  hand,  or  it  is  not.  If  not, 
there  is  no  occasion  for  adjournment.  If  it  is,  I  chose  to 
be  found  doing  my  duty.  Bring  in  the  candles. 

In  order  to  make  the  dilemma  conclusive,  ob- 
viously two  things  are  necessary:  (i)  The  alterna- 
tive must  be  exact — it  must  include  all  the  possi- 
bilities in  the  case;  and  (2)  both  alternatives 
must  be  destroyed.  The  first  test  is  especially  dif- 
ficult to  meet,  for  two  alternatives  seldom  exhaust 
all  possible  cases.  But  when  a  perfect  dilemma  is 
found,  it  is  conclusive  refutation,  and  he  against 
whom  it  is  used  must  abandon  his  position. 

3.  Amplifying  and  Diminishing. — To  amplify 
and  diminish  one  uses  both  direct  argument 
and  refutation,  but  the  effect  is  largely  that  of  ref- 
utation. The  method  consists  in  magnifying 
(amplifying)  your  own  argument,  and  at  the  same 
time  belittling  (diminishing)  that  of  your  oppon- 


REFUTATION  139 

ent.  It  is  therefore  a  balancing  process,  the  argu- 
ments pro  and  con  being  placed  in  juxtaposition 
with  the  object  of  giving  a  more  favorable  view 
to  your  side  of  the  case.  To  cite  a  standard  ex- 
ample, Burke  refutes  Lord  North's  plan  for  con- 
ciliating the  American  colonies  by  amplifying  his 
own  plan  and  diminishing  that  of  Lord  North's : 

Compare  the  two.  This  I  offer  to  give  you  is  plain 
and  simple;  the  other  full  of  perplexed  and  intricate 
mazes.  This  is  mild;  that  harsh.  This  is  found  by 
experience  effectual  for  its  purposes;  the  other  is  a  new 
project.  This  is  universal;  the  other  calculated  for  cer- 
tain colonies  only.  This  is  immediate  in  its  conciliatory 
operation;  the  other  remote,  contingent,  full  of  hazard. 
Mine  is  what  becomes  the  dignity  of  a  ruling  people — 
gratuitous,  unconditional,  and  not  held  out  as  a  matter 
of  bargain  and  sale. 


SPECIAL  FORMS  OF  FALLACIES 

We  have  seen  that  any  unsound  reasoning 
any  gap  in  the  proof — is  a  fallacy.  Logicians  have 
classified  various  special  forms  of  fallacious  reason- 
ing, among  which  we  will  notice  the  following: 
Begging  the  Question  (Petitio  Principii),  Ignoring 
the  Question  (Ignorantio  Elenchi),  Composition 
and  Division,  and  Non  Sequitur. 

Begging   the   Question. — This   fallacy  consists, 


140  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

generally,  in  assuming  what  is  to  be  proved. 
The  fallacy  may  appear  in  various  forms,  the  most 
common  being ;  ( i )  Using  a  word  in  two  senses ; 
(2)  stating  what  is  to  be  proved  as  a  reason  for 
such  proof;  and  (3)  arguing  in  a  circle. 

1.  One  is  said  "to  beg  the  question"  when  he 
uses  a  word  at  one  time  in  one  sense,  and  at  an- 
other time  in  a  different  sense,  and  yet  draws  a 
conclusion  depending  on  the  assumption  that  the 
word  has  the  same  meaning  in  both  instances, — 
otherwise  called  the  fallacy  of  ambiguous  terms. 
Such    words    as    "expansion,"    "socialism,"    "an- 
archy," etc.,  may  be  used  either  in  a  colorless  or 
in  a  prejudicial  sense,  but  they  cannot  properly  be 
used  in  both  senses  in  the  same  argument. 

2.  It  might  seem  strange  that  anyone  would  be 
so  foolish  as  to  assume  the  truth  of  his  conclusion 
as  a  means  of  proving  it,  and  yet  it  is  a  fault  often 

:ommitted  in  amateur  debating;  and  words  and 
phrases,  especially  in  a  long  discussion,  help  to 
cloak  the  error.  For  example:  "A  prohibitory 
law  should  be  enacted,  for  this  is  the  only  way  to 
control  the  liquor  traffic,"  begs  the  question,  since 
the  reason  stated  in  the  second  proposition  prac- 
tically assumes  the  truth  of  the  first  proposition. 
So,  a  religious  body  condemning  a  belief  because  it 


REFUTATION  141 

is  "heresy,"  begs  the  question,  since  heresy  is  a 
belief  which  should  be  condemned.  And  any 
statement  which,  instead  of  supporting  a  propo- 
sition, merely  varies  its  expression,  or  assigns  it 
incidents  granting  it  to  be  true,  is  only  a  repetition 
of  the  proposition,  and  is  no  evidence  or  proof. 

3.  "Reasoning  in  a  circle"  consists  in  using  in 
turn  each  of  two  propositions  to  prove  the  truth 
of  the  other.  A  bald  example  of  this  fallacy  is 
contained  in  the  following  conversation  in  a  popu- 
lar novel:  "  'Who  is  my  landlady ?'  Peter  asked. 
'She  is  the  Duchess.'  'Who  is  the  Duchess?' 
'Why,  she  is  your  landlady!'"5  The  fallacy, 
however,  is  not  always  so  apparent  as  this  instance 
shows.  In  the  case  of  Ogden  vs.  Saunders,  Web- 
ster thus  analyzed  an  extended  argument  by  the  op- 
posing counsel: 

The  plaintiff  in  error  argues  in  a  complete  circle.     He 
supposes  the  parties  to  this  contract  to  have  had  reference 
to  the  statute  law  because  it  was  a  binding  law,  and  ye% 
he  proves  it  to  be  a  binding  law  only  upon  the  ground 
that  such  reference  was  made  to  it. 

Arguing  in  a  circle  is  a  fallacy  not  infrequently 
used  by  a  careless  thinker,  and  it  is  often  employed 
as  a  trick  for  confusing  a  sluggish  thinker. 

5  "The  Cardinal's  Snuff-Box,"  p.  16. 


142  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

Ignoring  the  Question.* — This  fallacy  con- 
sists in  arguing  beside  the  point.  The  reasoning 
may  not  be  fallacious  in  itself,  but  the  fallacy  lies 
in  a  gap  between  the  proof  offered  and  the  main 
issues.  Sometimes  a  debater  will  glide  almost  im- 
perceptibly from  one  proposition  to  another,  and 
his  opponent  needs  to  revert  constantly  to  the 
analysis  of  the  question  to  make  him  meet  the  case. 
The  politician,  called  upon  to  reply  to  warranted 
criticisms  upon  some  party  measure,  is  wont  to 
indulge  in  vague  talk  about  "local  self-govern- 
ment/' "constitutional  rights,"  and  the  like.  So, 
in  trials  at  law,  when  an  attorney  finds  himself 
hard  pressed  as  to  the  real  merits  of  the  case,  he 
frequently  resorts  to  pleas  for  "justice"  and 
"righteousness."  The  fallacy  is  also  illustrated  in 
the  legal  maxim — or  want  of  maxim — "No  case, 
abuse  the  opposing  attorney."  The  following  oft- 
quoted  extract  shows  what  Macaulay  claimed  was 
a  widespread  use  of  this  fallacy : 

The  advocates  of  Charles  the  First,  like  the  advocates 
of  other  malefactors  against  whom  overwhelming  evi- 
dence is  produced,  generally  decline  all  controversy  about 
the  facts,  and  content  themselves  with  calling  attention  to 
character.  .  .  .  And  what,  after  all,  are  the  virtues 
ascribed  to  Charles?  A  religious  zeal,  not  more  sincere 
than  that  of  his  son,  and  fully  as  weak  and  narrow- 
minded,  and  a  few  of  the  ordinary  household  decencies 
which  half  the  tombstones  in  England  claim  for  those 


REFUTATION  143 

who  lie  beneath  them.  A  good  father!  A  good  hus-  4 
band!  Ample  apologies  indeed  for  fifteen  years  of  perse- 
cution, tyranny,  and  falsehood!  We  charge  him  with 
having  broken  his  coronation  oath;  and  we  are  told  that 
he  kept  his  marriage  vow!  We  accuse  him  of  having 
given  up  his  people  to  the  merciless  inflictions  of  the  most 
hot-headed  and  hard-hearted  of  prelates;  and  the  de- 
fense is,  that  he  took  his  little  son  on  his  knee  and  kissed 
him !  We  censure  him  for  having  violated  the  articles  of 
the  Petition  of  Right,  after  having,  for  good  and  valu- 
able consideration,  promised  to  observe  them;  and  we  are 
informed  that  he  was  accustomed  to  hear  prayers  at  six 
o'clock  in  the  morning!  .  .  .  We  cannot,  in  estimating 
the  character  of  an  individual,  leave  out  of  our  consider- 
ation his  conduct  in  the  most  important  of  all  human  re- 
lations; and  if  in  that  relation  we  find  him  selfish,  cruel, 
and  deceitful,  we  shall  take  the  liberty  to  call  him  a  bad 
man,  in  spite  of  all  his  temperance  at  table,  and  all  his 
regularity  at  chapel. 

What  are  technically  called  the  Argumentum  ad 
Hominem  and  the  Argumentum  ad  Ignorantiam 
are  only  other  forms  of  the  Ignorantio  Elenchi. 

The  argument  ad  h.ominem  is  an  appeal  or  at- 
tack "addressed  to  the  peculiar  circumstances, 
character,  avowed  opinions,  or  past  conduct  of  the 
individual,  and  therefore  has  reference  to  him 
only,  and  does  not  bear  directly  and  absolutely  on 
the  real  question."6  It  attacks  an  opponent's  con- 
sistency or  character,  rather  than  his  argument.  It 

"Whately,  "Elements  of  Logic,"  p.  237. 


144  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

is  often  heard  in  courts  of  law  and  in  political 
campaigns,  when  men  and  not  principles  are  at- 
tacked. It  is  gratifying  to  note,  however,  that  this 
kind  of  argument  has  become  less  and  less  com- 
mon in  modern  public  debate.  When  an  oppon- 
ent's character  is  attacked,  it  obviously  has  no  bear- 
ing on  the  merits  of  a  question  other  than  to  dis- 
credit him  as  a  witness.  And  when  his  consist- 
ency is  attacked,  this,  too,  can  go  no  farther  than 
to  discredit  him  personally;  it  leaves  the  real  ques- 
tion untouched.  The  urging  of  an  opponent's  in- 
consistency— that  his  advocacy  of  a  certain  meas- 
ure is  contrary  to  his  opinions  as  previously  ex- 
pressed, or  with  his  circumstances — has,  it  is  true, 
a  certain  force  in  popular  harangues,  but  the  ar- 
gument is  frequently  worked  beyond  its  legitimate 
limits.  Suppose  a  man  does  argue  contrary  to  his 
record  or  to  his  circumstances — what  of  it?  This 
fact  has  no  bearing  on  his  argument,  nor  does  it 
necessarily  impeach  his  sincerity.  If  one  were 
never  to  change  his  opinions,  there  would  be  no  in- 
dividual development.  A  great  man  has  said  that 
it  is  the  prerogative  of  great  minds  to  change  their 
opinions.  "A  foolish  consistency,"  says  Emerson, 
"is  the  hobgoblin  of  little  minds." 

The  argument  ad  ignorantiam  is  one  based, 
generally  speaking,  on  the  ignorance  of  an  op- 
ponent, or  of  an  audience.  Ordinarily,  it  refers  to 


REFUTATION  145 

attempts  to  prove  a  given  proposition  true  by 
showing  that  its  opposite  cannot  be  proved.  But 
proving  a  thing  untrue  is  not  proving  true  its  op- 
posite. The  fallacy  consists  in  confusing  refuta- 
tion with  positive  proof.  One  form  of  it  is  "the 
fallacy  of  objections."  Every  day  we  hear  men 
object  to  this  or  that  plan,  theory,  or  system,  and 
thence  inferring  that  it  must  be  rejected.  But  the 
real  question  is, — as  was  previously  stated  in  dis- 
cussing Proof, — Do  the  objections,  after  all,  out- 
weigh the  proved  advantages? 

Composition  and  Division. — The  fallacy  of 
Composition  arises  when  we  affirm  something 
to  be  true  of  the  whole  which  holds  true  only  of 
one  or  more  of  its  parts  when  taken  separately  or 
distributively;  as,  arguing  that  if  a  given  law 
would  be  good  for  a  certain  town,  or  State,  it 
would  therefore  be  good  for  the  nation.  Con- 
versely, the  fallacy  of  Division  consists  in  assum- 
ing that  what  is  true  of  the  whole  is  also  true  of 
the  parts  taken  separately ;  as,  arguing  that  a  law 
that  is  good  for  a  community  as  a  whole  is  neces- 
sarily good  as  applied  to  every  individual  in  that 
community.  Thus  both  fallacies,  it  will  be  seen, 
arise  from  drawing  unwarranted  generalizations. 

Non  Sequitur. — In    logic,    this    is    the    "fal- 

10 


146  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

lacy  of  the  consequent"  It  consists  in  drawing  il- 
logical conclusions  from  the  facts  or  premises ;  as, 
"Everyone  desires  happiness;  virtuous  people  are 
happy;  therefore  everyone  desires  to  be  virtu- 
ous." Non  sequitur — it  does  not  follow — obvi- 
ously characterizes  many  of  the  fallacies  pre- 
viously discussed.  It  should  be  noted  that  one's 
premises  may  be  false  and  his  conclusion  true,  and 
conversely,  the  premises  may  be  true  and  the  con- 
clusion false.  Especially  in  the  case  of  a  long  ar- 
gument, there  are  so  many  opportunities  for  er- 
rors between  premises  and  conclusion  that  it  is  un- 
safe to  assume  the  truth  or  falsity  of  one  from  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  the  other, — another  illustration 
of  the  care  needed  in  determining  fallacies,  and 
that  as  to  one's  own  argument,  as  well  as  to  the 
argument  of  an  opponent. 


REFUTATION  147 

EXERCISES. 

Let  the  student  point  out  the  methods  of  refutation  and  special 
forms  of  fallacies  in  the  following  examples. 

1.  It  is  said  that  the  control  of  trusts  by  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment is  unjustifiable  and  unconstitutional.     But  why  should  not 
the  Government  control  such  monopolistic  and  unjustifiable  com- 
binations? 

2.  With  the  free  and  unlimited  coinage  of  silver  at  the  ratio 
of  1 6  to  i,  silver  either  would  or  would  not  maintain  its  parity 
with  gold.     If  silver  should  maintain  its  parity,  free  coinage  is 
unnecessary,  for  that  is   the  condition   at   present;     if  it   should 
not,  free  coinage  is  undesirable,  for  it  would  cause  inflated  prices 
and  business  unrest. 

3.  The  Declaration  of  Independence  declares  that  all  men  are 
free  and  equal.     Therefore  the  negro  is  the  equal  of  the  white 
man. 

4.  All  criminal  actions  ought  to  be  punished  by  law.     Prose- 
cutions  for  theft   are  criminal    actions.     Therefore,   prosecutions 
for  theft  ought  to  be  punished  by  law. 

5.  It  is  always  wrong  to  lie;    for  any  departure,  for  any  reason 
whatever,  from  the  one  invariable  law  of  absolute  veracity  is  al- 
ways reprehensible. 

6.  This  island  empire   [The  Philippines]   is  the  last  land  left 
in  all  the  oceans.     If  it  should  prove  a  mistake  to  abandon  it, 
the  blunder,  once  made,  would  be  irretrievable.     If  it  proves  a 
mistake  to  hold   it,   the   error  can   be  corrected   when   we   will. 
Every    other    progressive    nation    stands    ready    to    relieve    us. — 
Beveridge. 

7.  Those  are  the  arguments  against  the  course  of  conduct   I 
propose;     and  yet  the  fact  remains  that  when  you  were  in  my 
position  you  did  the  very  thing  that  you  are  now   advising  me 
not  to  do. 

8.  If  a  student  likes  his  studies  he  needs  no  stimulus;    if  he 
dislikes  his  studies  no  stimulus  will  avail ;    but  a  student  either 
likes  his  studies  or  he  dislikes  them;    therefore  stimulus  is  either 
not  necessary,  or  it  is  of  no  avail. 

9.  You  cannot  help   going  with  the  minority,  who  are  strug- 
gling for  their  rights  against  the  majority.     Nothing  could   be 
more  generous,  when  a  weak  party  stands  for  its  own  legitimate 
rights   against   imperious   pride   and   power,   than   to   sympathize 
with  the  weak.     But  who  ever  sympathized  with  a  weak  thief, 


148  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

because  three  constables  had  got  hold  of  him?  And  yet  the  one 
thief  in  the  three  policemen's  hands  is  the  weaker  party.  I  sup- 
pose you  would  sympathize  with  him. — Beecher,  Liverpool 
Speech. 

10.  The  increased  immigration  of  Japanese  would  be  beneficial 
to  the   State  of  Texas;    therefore  it  would  be  beneficial  to  the 
United  States. 

11.  The  Panama  Canal  will  be  commercially  beneficial  to  the 
United    States;     therefore   it   will   be   commercially   beneficial   to 
the  State  of  New  York. 

12.  This  State  has  many  undeveloped  resources.     But  we  have 
a   State  University.     Therefore  the  higher   education   unfits  one 
for  a  business  career. 

13.  You  charge  that  we  stir  insurrections  among  your  slaves. 
We  deny  it;    and  what  is  your  proof?     Harper's  Ferry!     John 
Brown!     John  Brown  was  no  Republican;    and  you  have  failed 
to   implicate   a    single  Republican    in   his   Harper's   Ferry   enter- 
prise.    If  any  member  of  our  party  is  guilty  in  that  matter,  you 
know  it  or  you  do  not  know  it.     If  you  do  know  it,  you  are  in- 
excusable  for   not   designating   the   man    and    proving   the   fact. 
If  you  do  not  know  it,  you  are  inexcusable  for  asserting  it,  and 
especially   for   persisting   in   the   assertion    after   you    have   tried 
and  failed  to  make  the  proof. — Lincoln,  Address  at  Cooper  In- 
stitute. 

14.  When  I  consider  that  we  have  colonies  for  no  purpose  but 
to  be  serviceable  to  us,  it  seems  to  my  poor  understanding  a  little 
preposterous  to  make  them  unserviceable  in  order  to  keep  them 
obedient — Burke. 

15.  Senator   Depew's   opinion    of   the   United    States   Senate    is 
that  it  displays  "an  absence  of  jobbery,  an  unselfish  devotion  to 
the  public  service,  a  sincere  and  hopeful  patriotism,  and  a  broad, 
comprehensive  and  statesmanlike  grasp  of  the  necessities  of  the 
country   and  the  possibilities   of  its   development  worthy  of   the 
best  days  of  the  republic."     The  history  of  the   last  river   and 
harbor  bill  showed  that  conclusively. — The  Philadelphia  Ledger. 

1 6.  I  do  not  admit  the  competency  of  South  Carolina,  or  any 
other  State,  to  prescribe  my  constitutional  duty  or  to  pass  upon 
the    validity    of    laws    enacted    by    Congress.    .    .    .    And,    sir, 
if  we  look  to  the  general  nature  of  the  case,  could  anything  have 
been  more  preposterous  than  to  make  a  government  for  the  whole 
Union,  and  yet  leave  its  powers  subject,  not  to  one  interpretation, 
but  to  thirteen  or  twenty-four  interpretations?  .  .  .  Would  any- 


REFUTATION  149 

thing  with  such  a  principle  in  it,  or  rather  with  such  a  destitution 
of  all  principle,  be  fit  to  be  called  a  government?  No,  sir.  It 
should  not  be  denominated  a  Constitution.  It  should  be  called, 
rather,  a  collection  of  topics  for  everlasting  controversy;  heads 
of  debate  for  a  disputatious  people. — Webster,  Reply  to  Hayne. 
17.  Contrast  now  the  circumstances  of  your  life  and  mine, 
Aeschines,  and  then  ask  these  people  whose  fortunes  they  would 
each  of  them  prefer.  You  taught  reading,  I  went  to  school ;  you 
performed  initiations,  I  received  them;  you  danced  in  the  chorus, 
I  furnished  it;  you  were  assembly  clerk,  I  was  speaker;  you 
acted  third  parts,  I  heard  you ;  you  broke  down,  and  I  hissed ; 
you  have  worked  as  a  statesman  for  the  enemy,  I  for  my  coun- 
try.— Demosthenes. 


CHAPTER  VII 

PRELIMINARY  READING  AND  CLASSIFICATION 

I.  READING. — Prior  to  determining  upon  a 
final  line  of  proof,  and  sometimes,  it  may  be,  .be- 
fore a  complete  preliminary  analysis  is  worked 
out,  the  student  will  need  to  do  some  reading  on 
the  question  for  debate;  for  questions  are  rare 
in  which  one  can  depend  for  arguments  solely  on 
his  own  experience  and  thought.  But  in  view  of 
two  common  faults  of  students  in  preparing  de- 
bates, these  two  corresponding  admonitions  should 
be  heeded :  ( i )  Do  not  make  reading  a  substitute 
for  thinking,  and  (2)  Study  both  sides  of  the  ques- 
tion. 

I.  Thinking  should  precede,  accompany,  and 
follow  any  reading  on  the  question  under  investi- 
gation. In  taking  up  the  consideration  of  any 
proposition  for  debate,  the  first  thing  is  to  take  an 
inventory  of  the  contents  of  your  own  mind.  How 
does  the  question  strike  you  as  a  citizen  ?  What  pre- 
conceived notions  have  you  regarding  it?  Have 
you  proof  for  opinions  already  formed?  How 
does  the  question  arise  as  a  subject  for  discussion? 
What  is  the  meaning  of  the  proposition?  What 

(150) 


READING  AND   CLASSIFICATION  151 

are  the  issues  raised?  And  what  lines  of  proof 
are  necessary  in  order  to  establish  the  affirmative 
or  tly  negative  side?  In  other  words,  first  of  all 
^analyze  the  question  and  your  opinion  and  knowl- 
edge of  it.  Senator  Albert  J.  Beveridge,  in  an 
article  in  the  Saturday  Evening  Post  of  October 
5,  1900,  writes  as  follows: 

The  method  commonly  employed  in  preparing  speeches 
is  incorrect.  That  method  is  to  read  all  the  books  one 
can  get  on  the  subject,  take  all  the  opinions  that  can  be 
procured,  make  exhaustive  notes  and  then  write  the  speech. 
Such  a  speech  is  nothing  but  a  compilation.  It  is  merely 
an  arrangement  of  second-hand  thought  and  observation 
and  of  other  people's  ideas.  It  never  has  the  power  of 
living  and  original  thinking. 

The  true  way  is  to  take  the  elements  of  the  problem  in 
hand  and,  without  consulting  a  book  or  an  opinion,  reason 
out  from  the  very  elements  of  the  problem  itself  your 
solution  of  it,  and  then  prepare  your  speech. 

After  this,  read,  read,  read,  comprehensively,  omnivor- 
ously,  in  order  to  see  whether  your  original  solution  was 
not  exploded  a  hundred  years  ago — aye,  or  a  thousand; 
and  also,  to  fortify  and  make  accurate  your  own  thought. 
Read  Matthew  Arnold  on  Literature  and  Dogma  and 
you  will  discover  why  it  is  necessary  for  you  to  read  ex- 
haustively on  any  subject  about  which  you  would  think 
or  write  or  speak.  But,  as  you  value  your  independence 
of  mind — yes,  even  your  vigor  of  mind — do  not  read 
other  men's  opinions  upon  the  subject  before  you  have 
clearly  thought  out  your  own  conclusions  from  the 
premises  of  the  elemental  facts. 


152  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

2.  The  necessity  of  studying  both  sides  of  the 
question  has  been  shown  in  the  discussion  of  the 
processes  in  both  direct  proof  and  refutation^  Th 
debater  must  know  the  strong  and  weak  places  i 
both  the  affirmative  and  negative  sides;  and  he 
cannot  know  the  weak  places  in  his  own  argument 
until  he  knows  what  can  be  said  against  it.  The 
beginner  in  argumentation  is  very  apt  to  neglect 
the  study  of  the  other  side;  not  by  deliberately 
avoiding  it,  perhaps,  but  by  seeking  for  only  such 
material  as  will  tend  to  confirm  the  side  of  the 
question  that  he  wishes  to  establish.  On  the  im- 
portance of  studying  the  opposing  side  of  a  case,  a 
great  lawyer  is  said  to  have  remarked,  "If  I  have 
time  to  study  only  one  side  of  a  question,  I  study 
that  of  my  adversary." 

Not  only  should  one  read  arguments  on  both 
sides  of  a  question,  he  should  aim  to  get  a  com- 
prehensive grasp  of  the  whole  field  of  the  discus- 
sion, to  master  the  general  situation  or  general 
principles  involved  before  taking  up  the  details  of 
the  issues  raised  in  a  particular  question.  The 
search  for  material  should  be  pursued  in  the  fol- 
lowing order:  ( i )  Books  and  periodicals  that  deal 
with  the  question  generally;  (2)  magazine  articles 
or  pamphlets  bearing  on  the  particular  question, 
and  (3)  newspapers  and  reports — if  the  question 


READING   AND   CLASSIFICATION  153 

is  one  in  current  discussion — for  details  as  to  evi- 
dence. 

Generally  speaking,  four  classes  of  material  will 
be  gathered  from  reading:  (i)  Simple  facts; 
that  is,  facts  not  disputed  by  the  opposing  side, 
but  which,  as  a  groundwork  for  your  argument, 
it  is  necessary  the  hearers  should  know.  As  to 
such  facts,  then,  the  main  work  is  to  get  a  clear 
and  orderly  statement  for  use  as  the  basis  of  your 
proof.  (2)  Facts  in  dispute,  whose  value  will  de- 
pend upon  the  source,  and  whose  acceptance  by 
the  hearers  will  depend  upon  the  skill  with  which 
you  show  that  the  source  of  your  information  is 
reliable.  In  other  words,  all  the  tests  of  evidence, 
of  witnesses,  and  of  the  argument  from  authority, 
will  needs  be  brought  to  bear.  (3)  The  argu- 
ments of  others  opposed  to  you.  Such  arguments 
should  be  carefully  analyzed,  and  noted  for  future 
refutation.  (4)  The  arguments  of  others  in  your 
f$vor.  This  class  demands  the  greatest  care  in  its 
use.  The  arguments  supporting  your  side  should 
first  ^be  examined  critically,  to  see  if  they  are 
tenable  and  logical.  Then,  if  accepted,  adopt 
the  substance,  if  you  choose,  but  not  the  form.  Do 
not  borrow  en  masse,  or  even  paraphrase.  Such  a 
method  is  not  only  dishonest  (unless  given  as 
quoted  matter),  but  ineffective:  the  stamp  of  the 
speaker's  individuality  is  lacking.  In  using  the  ar- 


154  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

guments  of  others,  then,  avoid  compilation  and 
aim  for  originality;  pass  the  matter  through  the 
crucible  of  your  own  mind  and  give  it  a  new  mean- 
ing, mold  it  into  new  forms  and  stamp  it  with  your 
individual  expression, — in  short,  make  it  your 
own. 

The  preliminary  reading  for  gathering  proof- 
material,  therefore,  should  be  (i)  wide,  so  that 
the  whole  question,  pro  and  con,  is  covered;  (2) 
thorough,  so  that  nothing  essential  is  neglected; 
and  (3)  thoughtful,  so  that  the  matter  be  not 
swallowed  whole,  but  be  mentally  assimilated. 

II.  CLASSIFICATION. — Rhetoricians  and  others 
give  various  methods  as  to  collecting  and  arrang- 
ing material  for  an  essay  or  a  speech.  Individuals 
may  use  different  methods,  but  the  point  is,  some 
method  is  necessary.  The  following  plan  of  pro- 
cedure is  recommended.  Make  a  tentative  outline 
of  your  argument;  then  read  for  amplification; 
then  revise  the  outline,  if  found  desirable,  and 
fit  the  material  obtained  from  reading  int*  such 
outline.  The  details  of  an  outline  for  a  debate  are 
treated  in  the  next  chapter,  so  suffice  it  to  say  here 
that  the  outline  desired  at  this  point  should  be  as 
orderly  and  logical  as  possible.  The  main  head- 
ings might  run  something  as  follows :  ( i )  The 
Facts  in  the  Case;  (2)  Arguments  for  the  Affirma- 


READING   AND    CLASSIFICATION  155 

tive;  (3)  Arguments  for  the  Negative.  Then 
under  each  of  these  main  headings  would  be 
grouped  appropriate  subheadings.  At  the  outset, 
it  may  be,  especially  if  the  subject  is  a  familiar  one, 
or  at  any  rate  before  the  reading  will  have  pro- 
ceeded far,  the  main  issues  in  the  question  will 
loom  up.  These  will  naturally  constitute  the  main 
subheadings  under  either  (2)  or  (3)  above.  As 
the  reading  proceeds,  the  matter  finds  ready  classi- 
fication under  these  various  headings,  the  outline 
being  expanded  or  otherwise  changed  to  admit  of 
new  matter. 

Some  system  in  taking  notes  should  be  adopted. 
Memoranda  of  matter  needs  be  made,  for  no  one 
can  well  carry  in  memory  all  the  results  of  read- 
ing. But  what  a  jumble  many  students'  "notes" 
are!  If  one  crowds  into  a  notebook,  in  helter- 
skelter  fashion,  the  information  and  points  he 
gleans  from  reading,  wholly  unrelated  matter  re- 
corded in  an  unrelated  manner,  such  notes  are 
hardly  usable,  or  at  the  best  they  represent  poor 
economy  of  time.  An  old  Latin  maxim  holds  that 
"a  large  part  of  education  is  to  know  where  you 
may  find  anything."  Some  sort  of  classification 
should  accompany  the  note-taking.  The  best  plan 
is  to  make  the  notes  on  cards  or  slips  of  paper  of 
uniform  size,  each  labeled  with  a  heading  corre- 
sponding to  the  outline,  which  shows  the  point 


156  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

on  which  the  note  bears,  new  headings  being  added 
in  the  outline  as  new  ideas  occur.  After  the  notes 
are  finished,  assort  them  and  put  together  all 
those  bearing  on  a  particular  point.  Under  such 
a  plan  as  this,  it  will  be  seen,  the  outline  and  the 
notes  mutually  react  upon  and  aid  each  other. 

With  a  general  outline  drawn  up,  and  with  .the 
notes  classified  to  fit  such  outline,  the  debater  is 
ready  for  incorporating  the  whole  into  the  form  of 
a  brief.  This  is  the  subject  of  the  next  chapter. 


READING  AND   CLASSIFICATION  157 

EXERCISES. 

Assign  to  each  student  a  question  that  will  eventually  be 
briefed  and  debated.  In  advance  of  the  brief,  let  the  student 
hand  in,  first,  a  statement  of  the  principal  arguments,  affirmative 
and  negative,  such  statement  being  based  solely  on  his  general 
knowledge  of  the  question ;  then  a  fairly  exhaustive  bibliography, 
affirmative  and  negative,  stating  the  gist  of  each  book  or  article 
consulted;  then  a  statement,  deduced  from  his  notes,  of  the 
principal  arguments  for  and  against  the  proposition.  If  time 
permits,  review  and  criticize  these  written  reports  with  each 
writer  and  with  the  class. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  BRIEF 

We  saw  in  the  preceding  chapter  that  one's  pre- 
liminary reading  should  both  proceed  from  and 
result  in  an  outline.  Let  us  now  consider  the 
details  of  an  outline,  or  "brief,"  which  may  be 
used  as  a  foundation  for  either  a  written  or  an 
oral  argument. 

Why  an  Outline  is  Necessary. — Some  kind  of 
an  outline  is  indispensable  to  the  presentation  of 
the  argument  in  full.  In  the  first  place,  an  outline 
is  necessary  for  getting  an  orderly  arrangement  of 
the  proof.  Ideas  are  not  ordinarily  to  be  pre- 
sented in  the  same  order  in  which  they  were  ob- 
tained. There  must  be  such  a  rearrangement  and 
classification  of  the  material  that  the  whole  course 
of  the  discussion  is  covered  in  orderly  progression 
from  the  starting  point  to  the  end  desired;  and  an 
outline  may  be  said  to  furnish  a  map  of  the  territory 
to  be  traversed.  Secondly,  such  orderly  classifica- 
tion is  necessary  in  order  to  impress  the  plan  of  the 
whole  argument  upon  one's  mind.  No  ordinary 
person  can  carry  in  his  memory  a  complete  outline 
of  an  argument  without  first  reducing  it  to  writing. 


THE   BRIEF  159 

Further,  when  the  time  comes  for  presenting  the 
proof  in  final  form,  whether  it  be  first  written  out 
or  whether  spoken  directly  from  the  outline,  the 
author's  mind  should  be  left  free  for  the  elabora- 
tion of  his  argument,  step  by  step,  the  framework 
having  been  completed  in  advance.  Especially  is 
this  the  case  in  extemporaneous  debating;  for  any- 
one can  learn  to  speak  extempore  if  he  knows  in  ad- 
vance the  order  and  substance  of  what  he  wishes 
to  say.  Finally,  an  outline  is  necessary  in  order 
to  make  the  argument  clear  to  others.  Especially 
in  debate,  the  foundation  and  framework  in  the 
structure  of  the  speaker's  argument  must  be  made 
clear  to  the  hearers.  They  must  in  some  way 
be  made  to  see  the  structure — by  means  of  an  oc- 
casional "first,"  "secondly,"  and  "thirdly,"  or 
other  means  of  identification;  and  the  speaker  can- 
not well  make  the  structure  apparent  to  his  audi- 
ence unless  he  has  previously  made  an  outline 
for  himself. 

Different  Kinds  of  Outlines. — There  are  all 
sorts  of  outlines,  from  the  exceedingly  meager  and 
fragmentary  form,  consisting  in  mere  headlines  or 
catch-words,  to  an  elaborate  statement  covering 
all  material  points.  The  first  type  may  be  illus- 
trated by  the  following  brief  prepared  by  Lincoln 
for  his  argument  in  a  case  to  recover  for  the  widow 


l6o  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

of  a  Revolutionary  soldier  two  hundred  dollars 
which  had  been  retained  by  the  defendant  out  of 
four  hundred  dollars  awarded  the  widow  as  pen- 
sion money: 

No  contract — Not  professional  services — Unreason- 
able charge — Money  retained  by  Deft  not  given  to 
Pl'fE — Revolutionary  War — Describe  Valley  Forge  pri- 
vations— Pl'fT's  husband — Soldier  leaving  home  for 
army — Skin  Deft — Close.1 

This  outline  served  Lincoln's  purpose,  no  doubt, 
but  it  would  be  almost  useless  to  anyone  except  the 
writer,  and  it  is  altogether  too  meager  for  a  com- 
prehensive and  closely  related  argument.  The 
type  of  the  other  extreme — the  full  outline — is 
found  in  the  ordinary  legal  brief.  A  brief,  in  law, 
"is  a  document,  prepared  by  counsel  as  a  basis  for 
oral  argument  of  a  cause  in  an  appellate  court, 
containing  a  statement  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
questions  in  controversy  upon  the  appeal  arises;  of 
the  facts  of  the  case  so  far  as  they  relate  to  these 
questions;  a  specification  on  the  part  of  the  plain- 
tiff in  error  or  appellant  of  the  errors  alleged  to 
have  been  committed  by  the  court  below,  upon 
which  reversal  is  asked  for;  and  a  brief  of  the  ar- 
gument, consisting  of  the  propositions  of  law  or 
fact  to  be  maintained,  the  reasons  upon  which  they 

1  Lewis,  "Specimens  of  the  Forms  of  Discourse,"  p.  233. 


THE   BRIEF  l6l 

are  based,  and  citation  of  authorities  in  their  sup- 
port."2 A  brief  in  debate  has  all  the  essential 
features  comprehended  in  this  definition,  but  it 
need  not  contain  quite  so  full  and  detailed  state- 
ments as  a  brief  in  law;  since  a  debate-brief  al- 
ways presupposes  a  subsequent  expansion,  either 
written  or  oral,  while  a  legal  brief  often  takes  the 
place,  by  agreement  of  counsel,  of  any  oral  argu- 
ment. On  the  other  hand,  an  outline  consisting 
of  mere  headlines  is  insufficient.  With  a  view  of 
criticism  by  the  teacher,  the  student's  brief,  it 
should  be  remembered,  is  to  inform  a  reader,  as 
well  as  the  writer,  of  the  author's  analysis  of  the 
question  and  of  all  the  proof  upon  which  he  relies. 
It  is  a  composition  in  itself,  containing  all  that  part 
of  the  complete  argument  which  is  essential  for  a 
successful  appeal  to  the  intellect,  and  lacks  only 
complete  rhetorical  form  and  the  element  of  per- 
suasion. 

A  brief  in  debate,  then,  is  a  condensed  written 
argument,  covering  every  essential  step  in  the 
proof. 

GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS   OF   A  . GOOD  BRIEF 

The  main  features  of  a  good  brief  are  ( i ) 
Clearness,  (2)  Coherence,  and  (3)  Unity. 

2  Abbott,  "Brief  Making  and  the  Use  of  Law  Books,"  p.  5. 
II 


1 62  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

i.  Clearness. — However  desirable  perfect  clear- 
ness may  be  in  other  forms  of  composition,  in  ar- 
gumentation it  is  absolutely  indispensable.  Re- 
membering always  that  the  brief  is  the  outline- 
plan  for  the  subsequent  complete  argument,  it  is 
essential  that  it  be  so  constructed  that  the  reader — 
and  hence  later  the  hearer — may  readily  follow 
you.  And  yet  the  average  beginner  in  brief- 
writing  constantly  disregards,  in  actual  practice, 
this  fundamental  principle.  Nor  is  the  fault  con- 
fined to  the  school  or  college  student,  but  the  briefs 
of  many  lawyers — in  cases  where  so  much  depends 
upon  good  workmanship — are  lamentably  deficient 
in  clearness  and  orderliness.  A  member  of  the 
faculty  of  a  prominent  law  school  recently  wrote : 

Clearness  in  the  preparation  of  the  brief  goes  a  long 
way  toward  success  in  the  case.  There  cannot  be  too 
careful  attention  to  every  detail  of  style  and  arrange- 
ment. .  .  .  The  average  lawyer  does  not  know  how  to 
prepare  a  brief.  I  was  about  to  say  the  average  young 
lawyer,  but  I  will  make  it  general.  The  principal  faults 
that  I  should  specify  are  citation  of  cases  having  only  the 
most  general  bearing  on  the  question  in  hand,  the  use  of 
violent  expletives,  generally  a  cloak  for  feebleness  of 
thought,  undue  repetition,  and  higgledy-piggledy  arrange- 
ment. 

The  first  requisite  of  clearness  is,  of  course, 
clear  thought  on  the  part  of  the  writer.  If  your 


THE   BRIEF  163 

own  thoughts  are  muddy,  you  can  hardly  expect 
them  to  be  clear  in  the  brief.  You  must  have  an 
unobstructed  view  of  the  whole  course  of  the  argu- 
ment, from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  proof. 
But  more  than  this,  particular  care  must  be 
exercised  in  the  phrasing  in  order  to  make  the 
brief  clear  to  a  reader  and  to  the  average  hearer. 
I  say  to  the  average  hearer,  because  after  a  student 
has  made  special  study  of  a  question,  many  points 
that  are  very  apparent  to  his  own  mind  might  not 
appear  so  clear  to  one  who  has  made  no  special 
study  of  the  subject.  In  the  phrasing  of  your 
proof,  then,  avoid  complex  statements  and  aim  for 
simplicity,  directness,  and  conciseness. 

2.  Coherence. — Not  only  must  an  argument  be 
clear,  as  to  the  whole  and  as  to  all  its  parts,  but 
the  whole  must  hang  together  and  the  parts  adhere 
to  the  whole  and  to  each  other;  the  argument 
must  be  coherent.  The  two  principal  elements  of 
coherence  are  subordination  and  sequence.  We 
have  seen  that  any  question  for  debate  will  resolve 
itself  into  certain  issues  that  need  chiefly  to  be 
proved  in  order  to  prove  the  proposition;  and 
that  other  subordinate  issues,  with  all  the  evidence 
in  the  case,  merely  go  to  support  these  main  issues. 
Coherency  requires  that  these  main  issues  be  em- 
phasized in  the  argument,  and  that  related  issues 


164  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

be  subordinated;  that  is,  that  in  the  welding  to- 
gether— the  cohering — of  the  whole  argument  the 
evidentiary  and  supporting  material  be  grouped 
about  the  main  issues. 

By  sequence,  as  an  element  of  coherency,  is 
meant  that  all  steps  in  the  proof  naturally  and 
logically  lead  to  and  follow  one  another.  This 
applies  to  the  main  divisions  of  the  whole  argu- 
ment and  to  the  proof  that  supports  each  main 
division.  In  the  development  of  the  proof,  care 
should  be  exercised  to  avoid  arbitrary  and  abrupt 
changes;  the  transitions  from  one  part  of  the 
proof  to  another  should  be  smooth  and  natural. 
It  is  a  problem  in  classification  and  arrangement, 
which  we  shall  have  occasion  to  discuss  further  in 
connection  with  other  phases  of  brief-writing. 

3.  Unity. — Lastly,  a  brief  should  conform  to 
the  law  of  unity.  In  the  first  place,  analogous  to 
the  rhetorical  law  of  the  paragraph,  each  main 
division  of  the  argument  should  make  a  single 
impression  upon  the  mind  of  the  reader,  to  wit, — 
the  proof  of  the  proposition  which  is  the  subject 
of  that  division ;  and  then,  all  these  main  divisions 
should  in  turn  produce  but  a  single  impression, 
to  wit, — the  proof  of  the  main  proposition.  Here 
again  due  emphasis  will  aid  materially  in  the 
attainment  of  unity;  and  the  proper  coordination 


THE   BRIEF  165 

of  the  proof  material,  later  discussed,  will  serve 
as  a  check  against  the  scattering  effect  of  many 
arguments. 

THE  MAIN  DIVISIONS  OF  A  BRIEF 

Whatever  may  be  the  absolute  .requirements  in 
other  kinds  of  composition,  a  brief  in  debate  must 
always  include  the  threefold  division  of  an  intro- 
duction, the  proof  or  argument  proper,  and  a  con- 
clusion. Inasmuch  as  the  brief  is  to  include  every 
essential  feature  of  the  complete  argument,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  conceive  of  any  question  the 
argument  of  which  would  be  complete  if  any  of 
these  three  divisions  were  omitted.  Any  question 
for  debate  will  require  some  introductory  explana- 
tion and  exposition  and  some  indication  of  the 
proof  required,  before  entering  upon  the  argument 
proper.  The  argument,  or  proof,  is  of  course 
necessary.  And  the  cumulative  force  of  the  proof 
is  lost  without  a  conclusion  to  reenforce  and  bind 
the  whole  together.  Let  us  now  consider  these 
three  main  divisions  of  a  brief  in  some  detail,  all 
the  time  bearing  in  mind  that  the  brief  is  to  be 
the  foundation  for  the  subsequent  written  or  oral 
argument. 

THE  INTRODUCTION. — The  function  of  the  in- 


1 66  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

troduction  is  to  prepare  the  minds  of  the  audience 
for  the  subsequent  argument  by  presenting  all  facts 
and  explanations  necessary  for  understanding  the 
question,  pointing  out  the  issues  in  the  discussion, 
and  outlining  the  proof  as  to  those  issues.  An  in- 
troduction will  vary  in  length  and  explanatory 
details,  of  course,  according  to  the  nature  of  the 
question.  It  should  include,  in  addition  to  a  state- 
ment of  the  proposition,  a  bibliography,  and  an 
outline  of  the  proof,  the  results  of  the  preliminary 
analysis  of  the  question.  For  the  purpose  of  an 
orderly  and  uniform  mode  of  procedure,  and  also 
as  a  guard  against  superficial  work,  let  the  student 
write  out  his  introduction  by  following  these 
steps : 

1.  Statement    of    the    Proposition. — For    the 
benefit  of  the  critic,  indicate  at  the  outset  whether 
you  have  the  affirmative  or  negative. 

2.  Bibliography. — State     (a)     the     books     or 
general    treatises,    and    (b)    the    periodicals    and 
special  articles  you  have  actually  consulted,  with 
specific  reference  to  title,  author,  volume,  and  page. 
The  purpose  of  this  is,  first,  for  future  reference, 
and  secondly,  to  inform  the  critic  just  what  read- 
ing has  been  done  in  the  investigation  of  the  ques- 
tion;    thereby    further    references    can    often    be 
suggested.       It    is    to    be    understood    that    the 
bibliography  at  this  point  is  not  to  take  the  place 


THE   BRIEF  167 

of  specific  references  to  authorities  in  the  body  of 
the  brief,  whenever  the  citation  of  authority  is 
needed  to  substantiate  any  particular  statement. 

3.  Exposition  and  Definition. — Here  begins  the 
analysis  of  the  question,  which  is  continued  in  steps 
4,  5,  and  6.     Since  the  subject  of  Analysis  has 
been  fully  discussed  in  a  preceding  chapter,  a  brief 
recapitulation  only  is  given  here.     Exposition  and 
definition  comprehend  an  explanation  of  how  the 
subject  for  debate  arises,  a  statement  of  any  un- 
disputed facts  necessary  for  an  understanding  of 
the  question,  and  a  definition  of  the  terms  of  the 
proposition,    including   their   meaning   in   current 
discussion.     However  full  a  statement  under  this 
heading    a    particular    question    may    require,    it 
should  be  accurate,  clear,  and  pointed. 

4.  The  Common  Ground. — This  step  requires 
answers  to  such  questions  as:    What  extraneous 
topics  may  be  eliminated  in  the  discussion?    What 
matters  connected  with  the  proposition  can  both 
sides  properly  admit? 

5.  The  Main  Issues. — That  is,  what  points  must 
be  proved  in  order  to  prove  the  proposition?     A 
word  of  caution  here:  the  issues  must  be  proposi- 
tions reading  as  reasons  for  the  main  proposition. 
Students  often  state  the  issues  in  practically  the 
same  form  as  the  proposition  for  debate.     This 
indicates  little  or  no  progress  in  the  analysis. 


1 68  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

6.  The  Burden  of  Proof. — Tell  where,  in  a  de- 
bate of  the  question,  the  burden  of  proof  lies,  and 
why? 

7.  Partition  of  the  Argument. — By  partition  is 
meant  a  statement  of  what  you  propose  to  prove. 
This  statement  should  be  only  the  main  headings 
for  the  subsequent  argument.     These  headings,  or 
propositions,  will  naturally  be  identical  with,   or 
grow  out  of,  the  statement  of  the  issues;    that  is, 
the  statement  of  the  issues  and  that  of  the  partition 
may  be  in  identical  form,  though  not  necessarily 
so.     Having  stated  what  the  real  points  at  issue 
are,  the  partition  states  the  main  lines  of  proof 
necessary    to    establish    these    points.      In    actual 
debate  a  partition  may  not  always  be  desirable. 
If  the  audience  is  prejudiced  or  hostile,  it  is  some- 
times best  not  to  "give  away  the  case"  in  advance. 
But  ordinarily,  when  the  audience  is  impartial,  or 
at  the  worst  indifferent,  the  hearers  should  be  told 
in  advance  of  the  plan  of  proof.     They  can  then 
more  easily  and  more  intelligently  follow  the  argu- 
ment.    The  divisions  in  the  partition  should  be 
natural  and  logical;    made  on  the  same  basis — 
from  the  same  point  of  view;    exhaustive  of  the 
proof,  but  not  too  numerous;    stated  clearly  and 
concisely;    and  then   followed   in   the   subsequent 
argument. 

In  many  questions  little  or  no  attention  will  be 


THE   BRIEF  169 

needed  to  some  of  the  foregoing  points.  When 
the  question  is  an  unusual  or  intricate  one,  all  the 
preceding  headings  will  need  to  be  carefully  con- 
sidered and  filled  out.  If,  however,  the  question 
relates  to  some  topic  of  current  discussion,  the  im- 
mediate cause  for  discussion  and  the  origin  of  the 
question  may  be  known  to  all.  But  in  many  ques- 
tions of  the  day  a  preliminary  statement  of  the 
facts  in  the  case  is  necessary  in  order  to  get  the 
bearings  for  one's  proof.  For  instance,  take  the 
much-discussed  question  of  the  election  of  United 
States  Senators  by  direct  vote  of  the  people.  This 
would  require  an  explanation  of  the  idea  under- 
lying the  creation  of  the  Senate,  of  the  present 
mode  of  election,  and  a  narration  of  the  events 
leading  up  to  the  agitation  for  popular  election. 
Again,  the  terms  in  the  question  may  be  plainly 
self-defining,  and  there  may  be  no  special  points 
for  designation  as  common  ground.  All  such 
questions  the  student  will  need  to  ask  himself  as  he 
takes  up  seriatim  the  points  to  be  .considered  in  the 
introduction. 

One  other  point  as  to  the  introduction:  it 
should  be  wholly  non-partisan.  Aside  from  such 
favorable  impression  of  your  side  as  may  be 
created  from  the  analysis  of  the  question,  reserve 
all  argument  until  you  come  to  the  argument 
proper.  Otherwise  you  overstep,  in  the  first  place, 


1 70  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

the  bounds  of  an  introduction,  and  furthermore, 
you  are  much  more  apt  to  prejudice  your  case  than 
to  help  it.  Aristotle  says,  "Argumentation  has 
but  two  essential  parts — the  statement  of  the  case 
and  the  proof."  The  statement  of  the  case  is 
exposition,  and  the  more  purely  expository  it  is 
the  stronger  will  be  its  effect.  The  very  purpose 
of  an  argument — conviction — assumes  that  there 
are  minds  to  be  convinced;  and  a  partisan  and 
prejudicial  introduction  only  defeats  its  own  ob- 
ject. 

The  writings  and  speeches  of  masters  in  debate 
will  show  their  appreciation  of  the  necessity  of 
keeping  an  introduction  free  from  all  signs  of 
prejudice  and  unfairness. 

THE  ARGUMENT. — Using  the  term  in  its 
limited  sense,  the  name  "Argument"  is  here  given 
to  the  body  of  the  brief,  in  preference  to  "Discus- 
sion" or  "Brief  Proper."  This  division  of  the 
brief  has  as  its  function  the  presentation  of  the 
proof.  Two  matters  claim  our  attention — <the 
order  and  the  form  of  presentation. 

Order  of  the  Proof. — The  order  in  which  argu- 
ments are  to  be  presented  is  a  very  important 
matter,  and  yet  to  lay  down  detailed  rules  there- 
for would  be  extremely  dangerous.  Much  must 


THE   BRIEF  171 

depend  upon  the  nature  of  the  question  and  the 
character  and  temper  of  the  audience.  Ordinarily, 
an  argument  should  open  with  direct  proof  rather 
than  with  refutation;  this  to  avoid  emphasizing 
the  idea  of  your  being  on  the  defensive.  First 
make  out  at  least  a  prima  facie  case  by  constructive 
argument.  A  speaker  on  the  negative  may,  of 
course,  need  to  refute  a  strong  argument  against 
him  at  the  very  beginning,  but  it  is  often  quite  as 
well,  by  brief  reference,  to  postpone  it  to  its  natural 
place  in  connection  with  the  presentation  of  the 
constructive  argument.  The  direct  proof  first 
presented  should  be  strong  and  cogent  for  the 
audience  addressed — sometimes,  it  may  be,  even 
startling.  Generally,  the/argument  of  antecedent 
probability  should  come  first,  for  this  is,  as  we 
have  seen,  essentially  preparatory  in  its  nature. 
Having  made  out  a  probable  case,  the  minds  of 
the  hearers  are  then  prepared  to  receive  the  more 
positive  proof.  Again,  it  is  a  psychological  law 
that  the  opening  and  closing  of  any  speech,  or 
divisions  of  a  speech,  are  the  strongest  places — 
the  places  of  greatest  emphasis.  The  first  and 
final  impressions  are  the  most  lasting.  Acting  on 
this  principle,  the  successful  trial  lawyer  makes 
much  of  the  opening  of  his  case — the  preliminary 
statement  of  facts  to  the  jury.  It  is  better,  then, 
as  a  general  rule,  to  have  the  relatively  weaker 


172  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

arguments  in  the  middle,  buttressed  by  the  stronger 
on  either  side.  And  whenever  you  know  there  is 
a  strong  argument  that  is  bound  to  be  presented 
against  you,  it  is  well  to  follow  up  the  opening  by 
a  refutation  of  such  argument;  that  is,  do  not 
leave  palpably  strong  arguments  against  you  to 
be  dealt  with,  in  the  first  instance,  by  your  op- 
ponent. 

Further  than  the  foregoing  general  suggestions, 
little  can  be  said  of  any  real  value  as  to  the  best 
ordering  of  proof.  The  particular  question  must 
always  determine  that,  and  an  ounce  of  brief- 
writing  will  be  worth  pounds  of  theory.  How- 
ever, the  following  general  types  of  outlines  of 
different  classes  of  questions  may  be  suggestive  as 
to  ways  of  setting  about  the  preparation  of  an 
argument : 

i .  A  Question  of  Fact. — A  is  guilty  of  murder. 
I.  It  is  antecedently  probable  that  he  committed 
the  act,  for  he  had  a  motive  for  so  doing.  II.  He 
is  shown  to  be  guilty  by  (A)  direct  testimony,  and 
(B)  facts  which  are  the  effects  of  his  act,  and 
which  cannot  be  otherwise  explained.  III.  This 
act  the  law  makes  a  murder.  A.  Moral  reasons 
why  it  should.  B.  The  statutes  make  it  such,  for 

1 I )  they  make  x  a  crime,  and  this  act  is  x ;    and 

(2)  authorities  sustain  this  contention. 


THE   BRIEF  173 

2.  A    Question    of   Policy. — I.  The    proposed 
plan   should   be   adopted.      A.   It   is  antecedently 
reasonable  that  a  reform  is  urgent.     B.  The  pro- 
posed plan  is  expedient,  for  xy  y,  and  z  are  needed, 
and  it  will  supply  these  needs.     C.  It  has  worked 
well  elsewhere,  and  will  work  well  in  the  present 
case,  wherein  the  conditions  are  similar.   D.  There 
is  no  better  plan. 

3.  Casting  the  last  type  of  argument  into  nega- 
tive form,  and  employing  the  Method  of  Residues, 
we  would  have  a  type  of  outline  something  like 
this:     I.  A   solution   of  the   problem   under  con- 
sideration must   (i)    conform  to  the  principle  x; 
(2)  meet  existing  needs;  (3)  satisfy  the  interests 
of  A,  B,  and  C;    (4)  be  justified  by  experience; 
and  (5)  explain  all  the  facts  in  the  case.     II.  Of 
the  three  possible  solutions,  a,  b,  and  c,  neither  a 
(the  plan  proposed)   nor  b    (i)   conforms  to  the 
principle  x\    (2)  meets  existing  needs;    (3)  satis- 
fies the  interests  of  A,  B,  and  C;    (4)  has  proved 
successful  where  tried;    (5)   explains  all  the  facts 
in  the  case.     III.  The  remaining  plan,  c,  fulfils 
all  the  foregoing  requirements,  and  should  there- 
fore be  adopted  in  preference  to  plan  a. 

Form. — By  way  of  preface,  it  is  to  be  borne  in 


174  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF   DEBATE 

mind  that  everything  of  probative  value  for  the 
finished  argument  is  to  be  included  in  the 
brief,  and  only  incidental  illustrations,  amplifying 
sentences,  and  purely  persuasive  material  are  to 
be  omitted.  In  a  brief,  as  in  argument  generally, 
there  should  be  no  assertion  without  proof.  In 
adopting  any  scheme  for  the  statement  of  the 
proof,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  again,  that  the  brief 
is  for  a  reader  as  well  as  for  the  writer,  and  that 
any  one  of  various  methods  might  be  adopted,  so 
that,  for  the  practical  purposes  of  class  work,  a 
uniform  method  be  used.  Further,  it  is  a 
good  training  in  habits  of  method  and  orderliness 
generally  if  the  student  is  required  to  follow  rigidly 
some  one  plan  of  arrangement  in  briefing  his 
argument.  To  these  ends,  the  following  method 
is  recommended. 

First  divide  your  proof  into  a  number  of  main 
propositions,  corresponding  to  the  Partition.  Then 
pick  out  the  statements,  or  evidence,  that  support 
each  of  these  main  propositions;  then  the  proof 
that  supports  these  statements — and  so  on  down 
to  the  smallest  necessary  detail  of  evidence.  The 
main  propositions  should  read  as  reasons  for  the 
proposition  which  is  the  subject  for  debate,  and 
subheadings  and  sub-subheadings  in  each  group 
should  read  as  reasons  for  the  heading  next  above 
them.  The  subheadings  should  be  arranged,  of 


THE   BRIEF  175 

course,  in  the  order  of  climax, — the  strongest 
argument  last, — unless  this  arrangement  violates 
the  logical  order.  Again,  every  heading  in  the 
argument  should  be  a  complete  sentence.  This 
will  conduce  to  clearness.  A  word  or  phrase  con- 
veys no  specific  idea  to  a  reader,  or,  in  any  event, 
it  might  convey  a  meaning  foreign  to  the  writer's 
intention.  Moreover,  a  complete  sentence  is  far 
more  apt  to  make  the  argument  clear  to  the  writer 
himself.  A  sentence  usually  means  something, 
"and  it  usually  means  approximately  what  the 
writer  has  in  mind."  And  almost  always  it  should 
be  a  simple  sentence.  Compound  and  complex 
sentences  are  to  be  avoided.  At  any  rate,  each 
heading  should  state  but  a  single  argument;  a 
strict  adherence  to  this  rule  will  avoid  confusion 
and  a  lack  of  coordination  in  the  proof.  As  a 
further  aid  to  clearness  and  coherency,  indent  all 
subheadings  in  a  uniform  manner  about  an  inch 
to  the  right  of  the  heading  next  above  them,  and 
use  a  uniform  system  of  denotation  of  the  head- 
ings; as,  (a)  Roman  numerals,  (b)  capital  letters, 
(c)  Arabic  numerals,  (d)  initial  small  letters, 
then;  i',  a',  etc.  And  further,  make  the  connection 
clear  between  any  proposition  and  the  statements 
which  support  it  by  appropriate  conjunctions, — 
"for,"  "because,"  etc.  And  whenever  a  statement 
is  made  depending  for  its  value  upon  the  source, 


176  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF   DEBATE 

the  authority  should  be  cited,  either  immediately 
following  the  statement  or  in  the  margin  of  the 
brief. 

Thus  a  brief  not  only  outlines  the  proof,  but 
shows  its  logical  relationship.  It  will  be  seen  that 
the  method  of  arrangement  here  recommended 
follows  the  deductive  order;  proceeding  from  the 
greater  to  the  less,  from  the  general  to  the  specific. 
This  plan  not  only  has  practical  advantages  in 
the  graphic  representation  of  an  argument,  but  it 
is  the  normal  order  of  presentation.  If  the 
detailed  evidence  and  propositions  in  support  of 
the  main  propositions  were  put  first, — the  "hence 
and  therefore"  method, — one  would  need  con- 
stantly to  look  ahead  to  see  the  bearing  and  test 
the  force  of  the  subheadings.  In  the  oral  presen- 
tation it  may  sometimes  be  wise,  as  in  the  case  of  a 
prejudiced  or  hostile  audience,  to  reverse  the  order 
in  the  main  divisions  of  the  brief  and  so  to  conceal 
till  the  end  the  point  that  is  being  proved,  but  such 
cases  are  exceptional.  It  is  usually  best  to  let  the 
audience  know,  at  the  successive  stages  of  the  argu- 
ment, just  what  you  aim  to  prove.  They  can  then 
more  readily  see  the  bearing  of  the  proof  as  it  is 
presented. 

THE  CONCLUSION. — The  function  of  the  con- 
clusion, so  far  as  the  brief  is  concerned,  is  to  state 


THE   BRIEF  177 

concisely  the  steps  by  which  the  decision  is  reached. 
It  should  contain  no  new  proof,  but  simply  a  brief 
summary  of  the  argument.  Ordinarily,  it  need 
recapitulate  no  further  than  the  main  proposi- 
tions and  the  first  series  of  supporting  propo- 
sitions— the  I,  II,  III  ....  and  A,  B,  C 
....  headings. 

By  way  of  illustration  and  summary  of  this 
chapter,  there  is  appended,  first,  the  principal  rules 
of  brief-writing;  second,  a  skeleton  form  of  a  com- 
plete brief;  and  third,  the  skeleton  form  expanded 
into  a  specimen  brief. 


RULES  FOR  BRIEF  WRITING. 

1.  A    brief,    being    a    condensed    written    argument, 
should  cover  every  material  point  in  the  proof. 

2.  The  brief  should  be   divided   into   the  three  main 
parts  of  Introduction,  Argument,  Conclusion. 

3.  The  Introduction  to  a  brief  should  include  a  clear 
exposition   of   the   preliminary   analysis   of    the   question, 
with  little  or  no  argument. 

4.  The  Argument,   or   Proof,  should   show  the  chain 
of  reasoning  by  stating  the  proof  in  a  series  of  proposi- 
tions, with  appropriate  subheadings  and  connectives. 

5.  Each  heading  should  be  in  the  form  of  a  complete 
sentence. 

12 


178  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF   DEBATE 

6.  Each  heading  should  contain  but  a  single  argument. 

7.  Main  headings  must  read  as  reasons  for  the  Conclu- 
sion. 

8.  Subheadings  must  read  as  reasons  for  the  heading 
under  which  they  are  grouped. 

9.  Indicate  correlations  in  the  following  order:      (i) 
Roman   numerals,    (2)    capital   letters,    (3)    Arabic   nu- 
merals, (4)  initial  small  letters,  (5)   i',  2',  3'....  (6)  a', 
b'.c'.... 

10.  The  correlations  should  be  regularly  indented. 

11.  Connect   each   proposition   with   subordinate   head- 
ings  by   proper   connectives, — "because,"    "since,"    "for," 
etc. 

12.  The  Conclusion  should  contain  a  brief  summary  of 
the  whole  argument. 


SKELETON  FORM  OF  A  COMPLETE  BRIEF. 

INTRODUCTION. 

1.  Statement  of  the  Proposition. 

2.  Bibliography:     (a)    General    references, — books,    etc.; 

(b)  Periodicals  and  special  articles. 

3.  Exposition  and  Definition:     (a)    Origin  of  the  ques- 

tion,   (b)    Its   meaning   in   current   discussion,    (c) 
Definition  of  terms. 

4.  The  Common  Ground. 

5.  The  Main  Issue  or  Issues. 

6.  The  Burden  of  Proof. 

7.  Partition  of  the  Argument. 


THE   BRIEF  179 

ARGUMENT. 

The  Proposition  is  true,  because 

I.   (A  complete  sentence,  reading  as  a  reason  for'  the 

ic,  for 
is   true,    for 


for 


"    for,  etc. 


A  

i  

« 

2  

M 

3  

M 

a  

M 

b  

« 

c  

<{ 

B  

« 

« 

CONCLUSION. 


Since  I  is  true,  because  A,  B,  C  ........  are  true;   and 

II  is  true,  because  ......  etc.  ;   and  III  is  true,  etc.,  there- 

fore the  Proposition  is  true. 


l8o  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 


SPECIMEN  BRIEF 

(The  following  brief  is  submitted  as  a  "specimen,"  not  as  a 
model.  The  bibliography  below  is  by  no  means  exhaustive; 
not  all  possible  lines  of  arguments  are  included  in  the  brief,  and 
many  details  of  evidence  and  proof  bearing  on  the  enumerated 
arguments  are  omitted.  The  brief  is  intended  primarily  to  fur- 
nish a  model  as  to  form  of  arrangement.) 

Proposition  — The  United  States  should  retain  perma- 
ment  control  of  the  Philippine  Islands,  (affirmative.) 

Bibliography. — (a)  General  references:  Worcester, 
"The  Philippine  Islands  and  their  People";  Foreman, 
"The  Philippine  Islands";  Stevens,  "Yesterdays  in  the 
Philippines";  Lala,  "The  Philippine  Islands";  Annual 
Reports  of  the  Philippine  Commission;  Senate  Docu- 
ments, 55th,  56th,  57th,  and  58th  Congresses;  Publica- 
tions of  the  Anti-Imperialist  leagues.  (b)  Periodicals 
and  special  articles:  American  Review  of  Reviews,  Out- 
look, Independent,  Nation,  1898  (see  Indices)  ;  Forum> 
xxv.  p.  534;  xxvi.  p.  177;  xxx.  p.  265;  Atlantic 
Monthly,  Ixxxi.  p.  577;  xcii.  p.  256;  xciv.  p.  577; 
Arena,  xx.  p.  445;  xxiii.  pp.  I,  247,  321,  331,  458,  561; 
xxv.  pp.  465,  521;  xxix.  p.  48;  Harpers  Magazine, 
xcviii.  pp.  609,  619,  720;  Century,  Ivi.  pp.  555,  781,  873; 
Scribners  Magazine,  xxvii.  p.  739 ;  World's  Work,  iv.  p. 
2344;  ix.  p.  5571;  Political  Science  Quarterly,  xii.  p. 
585;  xiv.  p.  240;  speeches  of  Senators  Beveridge  and 
Hoar  in  the  United  States  Senate,  1900. 

INTRODUCTION. 

Exposition  and  Definition. — The  question  under  dis- 
cussion arises  as  one  of  the  results  of  the  Spanish-Ameri- 


THE  BRIEF  l8l 

can  War.  Spain  having  ceded  to  us  the  Philippine 
Islands,  the  question  arises,  Are  we  to  retain  and  exercise 
permanently  the  sovereignty  thus  transferred  to  the 
United  States?  The  question  is  an  important  one,  for  it 
involves  (i)  a  great  political  problem — the  future  of  the 
United  States  as  a  colonizing  power  and  our  consequent 
relation  to  other  world  powers;  (2)  a  great  economic 
problem — the  value  and  importance  of  the  Philippines  in 
commercial  expansion;  (3)  a  great  social  problem — the 
relation  of  a  superior  to  an  inferior  race;  and  (4)  a  great 
moral  question — the  rights  and  duties  of  the  United 
States  in  relation  to  the  Filipinos.  The  term  '  'permanent 
control"  in  this  question  means  the  continued  exercise  of 
sovereignty  over  the  Islands  as  a  permanent  policy  of  the 
United  States,  although  it  does  not  preclude  the  possibility 
of  a  certain  measure  of  local  self-government. 

2.  Common  Ground. — Both  sides  must  agree  that  the 
United  States  is  at  present  exercising  sovereignty  over  the 
islands,  and  the  negative  will  also  probably  agree  that 
such  sovereignty  became  vested  in  the  United  States  in 
accordance  with  the  law  of  nations;  in  any  case,  the 
right  or  wisdom  of  our  acquisition  of  title  is  not  germane 
to  this  discussion.  It  is  also  generally  admitted  that  those 
who  favor  the  permanent  retention  of  the  Philippine 
Islands  believe  that,  while  the  United  States  may  give  to 
the  islands  a  large  measure  of  local  autonomy,  sover- 
eignty should  never  be  relinquished;  and  that  those  who 
oppose  permanent  retention  believe  that  the  islands  should 
be  permitted  to  establish  an  independent  government  at 
the  earliest  possible  moment,  and  that  a  declaration  to  this 
effect  should  be  made  by  the  United  States  at  once. 

3.  Main  Issues. — The  question,  then,  seems  to  rest  on 
these  four  main  issues:  (i)  Is  the  permanent  retention 


1 82  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF   DEBATE 

of  the  Philippine  Islands  desirable  for  political  reasons? 
(2)  Is  it  desirable  for  economic  reasons?  (3)  Is  it  de- 
sirable for  military  and  naval  reasons?  (4)  Is  it  justi- 
fiable on  moral  grounds? 

4.  Burden  of  Proof. — Since  the  affirmative  is  contend- 
ing for  the  continuance  of  a  present  status,  the  burden  is 
on    the    negative    to    show    why   such    status    should    be 
changed,  and  that  some  other  policy  will  be  better  than 
the  present  one;    while  the  affirmative  must  show  either 
that  the  reasons  which  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  present 
policy  will  hold  for  the  future,  or  that  there  are  other 
reasons  to  justify  a  permanent  continuance  of  such  policy. 

5.  Partition   of   the  Argument. — The  affirmative   will 
undertake  to  prove :    ( I )   that  the  permanent  control  of 
the  Philippine  Islands  is  desirable  for  political  reasons; 
(2)  that  it  is  desirable  for  economic  reasons;    (3)  that  it 
is  desirable  for  military  and  naval  reasons;    (ty)  that  it  is 
justifiable  on  moral  grounds. 

ARGUMENT 

I.  The  permanent  control  of  the  Philippine  Islands  by 
the  United  States  is  desirable  for  political  reasons, 
because 

A.  It  is  consistent  with  the  past  policy  of  the  nation, 
for 

i.  The  history  of  the  United  States  has  been 
one   of   territorial   expansion,    accompanied 
by  the  retention  of  the  acquired  land,  for 
a.  This  is  true  of  the  acquisition  of  the 
Louisiana  Territory,  of  Texas,  Cali- 
fornia,   Alaska,    Hawaii,    and    Porto 
Rico,  and 


THE   BRIEF  183 

b.  The  method  of  acquisition  of  these 
lands  was  similar  to  that  of  acquiring 
the  Philippine  Islands. 

2.  The  argument  that  the  Philippines  are  not 
contiguous  territory  is  of  no  force,  for 

a.  Neither  is  Alaska,  Hawaii,  nor  Porto 
Rico. 

3.  The  fact  that  our  nation  has  for  the  first 
time   acquired    possessions   in    the    Eastern 
Hemisphere  is  immaterial,  for 

a.  Steam  and  electricity  have  in  modern 
0  times  eliminated   the   former   import- 

ance of  continental  boundaries. 

B.  The  permanent  control  of  the  islands  will  im- 
prove domestic  politics,  because 

^  A  better  civil  service  will  be  developed,  for 
a.  Its  value  will  be  more  appreciated. 

2.  Administrative  ability  will  be  encouraged, 
since 

a.  The  field  for  its  display  will  be  much 
broader. 

3.  Domestic  issues  will  be  raised  to  a  higher 
plane,  for 

a.  A  broader  political  horizon  diminishes 
petty  political  differences. 

C.  The  retention  of  the  islands  will  improve  our 
foreign  relations,  for, 

1.  Greater  respect  will  be  shown  the  United 
States  by  other  powers,  for 

a.  This  has  already  been  demonstrated 
since  our  possession  of  the  islands. 

2.  The   United    States   will   be   placed    in    a 


* 


1 84  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF   DEBATE 

stronger  position  in  its  dealings  with  other 
nations,  since 

a.  The   future  political   battles  will   be 
for  commercial  supremacy. 

II.  The  permanent  control  of  the  Philippine  Islands  is 
desirable  for  economic  reasons,  because 

A.  Valuable  territory  will  be  acquired,  for 

1.  The  area  is  large. 

2.  The  soil  is  very  productive. 

3.  Natural  resources  abound,  for 

a.  The  country  is  rich  in  mineral  de- 
posits and  timber  (Reports  of  the 
Philippine  Commission). 

B.  Our  foreign  commerce  will  be  increased,  for 

1.  A  larger  trade  with   the  islands  will  be 
assured,  since 

a.  "Trade  follows  the  flag* 

2.  Trade  with  the  rest  of  the  Orient  will  be 
placed  upon  a  secure  foundation,  for 

a.  The    islands    furnish    an    invaluable 
point  for  distribution. 

b.  They   command   the   trade   route   of 
the  East. 

c.  The  many  good  harbors  and  the  coal 
deposits  make  a  good  stopping  place 
for  ships. 

d.  Political    supremacy    is   necessary   to 
secure    any    considerable    portion    of 
Oriental  trade,  for 

i'.  It  is  necessary  in  order  to  ob- 
tain necessary  concessions  and 
reciprocal  trade  agreements 
from  other  nations. 


THE  BRIEF  185 

3.  The  Eastern  trade  offers  the  best  field  for 
the  development  of  our  foreign  commerce, 
for 

a.  The  trade  with  China  alone  is  "the 
mightiest  commercial  fact  of  the 
future." 

C.  The    retention    of    the    islands    will    increase 
domestic  prosperity,  for 

1.  American    producers   need    larger    foreign 
markets,  for 

a.  In  many  lines  the  home  market  has 
become  exhausted,  for 

i'.  Production    exceeds    consump- 
tion. 

2.  American  capital  will  find  a  new  outlet, 
for 

a.  Capital,  like  trade,  follows  the  flag. 

D.  The  argument  that  the  islands  will  be  a  finan- 
cial burden  to  us  is  untenable,  for 

1.  The  expenditures  necessary  for  securing  a 
stable  government  and  instituting  reforms 
in  administration  afford  no  criterion. 

2.  By  far  the  greatest  part  of  the  expense  has 
already  been  met. 

3.  There  is  no  reason  why  the  islands  cannot 
eventually  be  made  self-supporting. 

III.  The  retention  of  the  islands  is  desirable  for  military 
and  naval  reasons,  because 

A.  They  will  be  valuable  in  time  of  peace,  for 

i.  A  base  will  be  provided  for  a  fleet  which 
must  always  be  left  in  Eastern  waters. 

B.  They  will  be  invaluable  in  time  of  war,  for 

i.  A  seat  of  unusual  strategic  importance 
will  be  furnished,  because 


1 86  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF   DEBATE 

a.  Of  its  position,  strength,  and  re- 
sources. 

2.  The  Filipinos  can  be  developed  into  an 
admirable  fighting  force  wholly  loyal  to 
the  United  States,  for 

a.  Our  experience  with  them  thus  far 
shows  this. 

TV.  The  retention  of  the  islands  is  justifiable  on  moral 
grounds,  because 

A.  It  is  justifiable  morally  so  far  as  the  United 
States  is  concerned,  for 

1.  The  United  States  is  morally  responsible 
for  the  welfare  of  the  islands,  for 

a.  The  assumption  of  sovereignty  car- 
ried with  it  a  certain  moral  obliga- 
tion. 

2.  In  no  way  but  by  retaining  the  islands 
can  this  moral  obligation  be  fulfilled,  for 

a.  Should  the  United  States  renounce 
control,  the  Filipinos  would  become 
the   victim    of    misgovernment    and 
the  prey  of  grasping  powers,  for 
i'.  Self-government   is  impossible, 
for    ^ 

a'.  The  people  are  not  a 
unit  politically,  geo- 
graphically, or  ethno- 
graphically. 

b'.  They  have  no  common 
language,  manners,  or 
customs. 

c'.  They  are  unfitted  by  an- 
tecedents and  training. 


THE   BRIEF  187 

d'.  The  great  mass  of  the 
people  have  no  wish  for 
independence. 

e'.  Authorities     are     practi- 
cally   unanimous    on    at 
least  their  present  unfit- 
ness  for  self-government. 
2'.  Japan  would  soon  find  occa- 
sion    to     assume     sovereignty 
over  the  islands. 

3.  No  promises  inconsistent  with  a  policy  of 
permanent  retention  were  ever  made  by 
duly  accredited  representatives  of  our 
government. 

B.  Retention  is  right  so  far  as  the  Filipinos  are 
concerned,  because 

i.  Their  condition  is  better  than  under  any 
other  rule,  for 

a.  It  is  much  better  than  it  was  under 
Spanish  rule,  for 

i'.  This  is  conceded  by  all. 

b.  It  is  better  than  it  would  be  under 
the  rule  of  any  other  power,  for 

i'.  The  moral  obligation  of  the 
United  States  to  the  islands  is 
greater. 

2'.  The   United    States   is   pursu- 
ing, and  will  likely  continue  to 
pursue,  a  more  just  and  gen- 
erous policy  than  would   any 
other  nation,  for 
a'.  The  policy  of  the  United 
States  looks  to  the  inter- 


1 88  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF   DEBATE 

ests  of  civilization,  and 
not  primarily  to  exploi- 
tation, for 

i".  Our  dealings  with 
Cuba  and  Porto 
Rico  —  and  also 
with  the  Philip- 
pines —  demon- 
strates  this. 

c.  It  is  better  than  it  would  be  if  the 
Filipinos  were  granted  their  inde- 
pendence, for 

i'.  An  honest  and  capable  admin- 
istration of  affairs  is  assured. 
2'.  The  largest  possible  measure 
of  individual  liberty  and  local 
self-government  will  be 
granted. 

3'.  The  people  will  be  educated 
and  elevated  according  to 
higher  ideals  than  they  have 
previously  known. 
4'.  Their  economic  and  social 
conditions  will  be  greatly  im- 
proved. 

5'.  They  will  have  the  benefit  of 
contact  with  a  superior  type^ 
of  representatives  of  a  superior 
race. 

6'.  The  corresponding  evils  which 
would  result  from  attempted 
self-government  will  be 
avoided,  for 


THE   BRIEF  189 

a'.  This  is  shown  by  our 
experience  with  Cuba, 
whose  people  are  far 
more  capable  of  self- 
government  than  the 
Filipinos. 

C.  Civilization  generally  will  be  promoted  by  the 
permanent  retention  of  these  islands  by  the 
United  States,  because 

1.  Civilization  is  retarded  whenever  a  semi- 
barbarous  people  attempt  to  govern  them- 
selves. 

2.  The  whole  trend  of  history  shows  the  ab- 
sorbtion  of  the  weaker  and  semi-civilized 
by  the  stronger  and  more  highly  civilized, 
and 

.  3.  The  Anglo-Saxon  race  is  best  fitted  to 
accomplish  this  task  with  justice  and 
wisdom,  and 

4.  The  United  States  is  best  fitted  to  carry 
civilization  to  the  Philippine  Islands,  for 

a.  No  nation  has  higher  ideals. 

b.  Those    who    say    that    the    United 
States   Government  is  not  adapted 
to  colonial  government  are  wrong, 
for 

i'.  This  is  not  true  in  theory,  nor 
nor  has  it  proven  true  in  prac- 
tice. 

CONCLUSION. 

Since  the  permanent  retention  of  the  Philippine  Islands 
by  the  United  States  is  (i)  politically  desirable,  because 


190  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

it  is  in  accord  with  our  policy,  will  improve  domestic 
politics,  and  will  also  improve  our  foreign  relations;  and 
since  it  is  (2)  economically  desirable,  because  valuable 
territory  will  thus  be  acquired,  our  foreign  commerce  and 
domestic  prosperity  increased,  and  no  financial  burden 
thereby  incurred  by  the  United  States;  and  since  it  is 
(3)  desirable  for  military  and  naval  reasons,  because  the 
islands  will  be  valuable  to  us  in  time  of  peace  and  in- 
valuable in  time  of  war;  and  since  (4)  the  retention  of 
the  islands  is  justifiable  on  moral  grounds  as  regards  the 
United  States,  the  Philippines,  and  civilization  gener- 
ally— therefore  the  United  States  should  retain  perma- 
nent control  of  the  Philippine  Islands. 


THE   BRIEF  191 


EXERCISES. 

1.  Select  one  or  more  speeches  by  masters  in  debate, — such  as 
Burke,  Webster,  Lincoln, — and  let  the  student  cast  them  into  the 
form  of  a  brief.     (A  skeleton  brief  of  Burke's  speech  on  "Con- 
ciliation with  the  American  Colonies"  will  be  found  in  "Master- 
pieces of  Modern  Oratory,"  pages  340-342,  and  a  more  detailed 
outline  is  given   in  Denney's  edition  of  the  same  speech,   pages 
133-137.) 

2.  Let  the  students  criticize — and  rewrite,  it  may  be,  outside  of 
class — the  following  bits  of  brief-writing,  taken  for  the  most  part 
from  students'  briefs: 

(A)  The  following  introduction  to  a  brief  was  written  during 
the  progress  of  the  Japanese-Russian  War  on  the  negative  of 
the  question,  "Resolved,  that  the  complete  victory  of  the  Jap- 
anese in  the  present  war  would  be  beneficial  to  civilization." 

Bibliography. —  (a)  Lawrence,  "War  and  Neutrality  in  the 
Far  East."  (b)  Articles  in  current  periodicals  and  newspapers. 

1.  Exposition  and  Definition. — This  question  has  arisen  on  ac- 
count of  the  position  and  relations  of  the  two  countries  now  en- 
gaged  in   war.     If  Russia   should   be   successful,   certain   results 
would  follow.     If  Japan  is  victorious,  certain  other  results  will 
follow.     The  question  has  arisen,  then,  in  regard  to  these  results. 
The  word  "complete"  as  here  used  would  mean  a  victory  such 
that  Japan  would  be  able  to  largely  dictate  terms  in  the  treaty  of 
peace  at  the  close  of  the  war. 

2.  Common   Ground. — Both  sides  will  agree  that  the  effect  on 
civilization  will  be  different  in  case  of  a  Japanese  victory  from 
what  it  would  be  in  case  of  a  Russian  victory. 

3.  Main  Issues. — The  single  issue  in  this  debate  is  whether  a 
complete  victory  by  the  Japanese  would  be»beneficial  to  civiliza- 
tion. 

4.  Burden  of  Proof. — The  burden  of  proof  rests  on  the  affirma- 
tive, because  they  muA  first  show  that  a  complete  victory  by  the 
Japanese  would  be  beneficial. 

5.  Partition. — I.    A   complete   victory   for   the   Japanese  would 
intensify  the  danger  of  the  "Yellow  Peril."    II.  This  would  prac- 
tically stop  progress  in  Siberia.     III.  The  loss  of  Manchuria  or 
part  of  it  would  call  for  advancement  on  the  Island  of  Japan. 


192  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF   DEBATE 

(B)  i.  The  Chinese  Exclusion  law  should  be  repealed,  because 

(a)  Statistics  show  it. 

(b)  Their  peaceful  traits  prove  it. 

2.  The  Chinese  are  a  most  industrious  people,  for 

(a)  Investigation  has   revealed   it. 

(b)  Statistics  have  proved  it. 

(c)  The  share  they  have  had  in  developing  the  Pacific 

coast  region  and  producing  wealth  establishes  it. 

(C)  I   propose  to  show  that  the  policy  of   Chinese  exclusion 
should  be  rigidly  maintained  for   (i)    social  reasons,    (2)    politi- 
cal reasons,   (3)    economic  reasons,  and    (4)   because  the  Chinese 
would  make  undesirable  citizens. 

(D)  Arizona    and    New    Mexico    should   not   be    admitted    as 
separate  States,  because 

1.  It  would  not  be  to  the  best  interests  of  these  territories 

themselves,  for 

(a)  They  are  a  natural   geographical  unit. 

(b)  They  are  a  natural  commercial  unit. 

2.  It  would  not  be  to  the  best  interests  of  the  nation  to  ad- 

mit them  as  a  single  State,  because 

(a)  The  combined  population  is  barely  up  to  the  re- 

quired  number. 

(b)  Either  Territory  alone  is  smaller  than  the  ordinary 

State. 

(c)  The  total  population  of  the  two  Territories  is  too 

small    to    justify    double    representation    in    the 
Senate. 

(E)  The   United   States  should   not   retain   permanent   control 
of  the  Philippine  Islands,  because 

1.  We  broke  our  agreement  with  the  Filipinos,  for 

(a)  Our  generals  promised  to  free  them  from  Spain,  for 

i.  We  needed  their  aid  to  expel  and  conquer  the 
Spaniards. 

(b)  We  promised  that  as  soon  as  the  war  was  over  we 

would  let  the  Filipinos  form  their  own  govern- 
ment. 

2.  To  hold  these  islands  is  violating  our  Constitution,  for 


THE   BRIEF 


(a)  The   Ninth   Amendment  states  that   all  people  of 

the  United  States  have  rights  and  privileges  that 
nobody  can  take  away. 

(b)  We  have  no  right  to  foreign  territory. 
3.  The  Democrats  contend  that 

(a)  All  men   are  created  free   and  equal,  with  equal 
powers,  hence 

i.  The    Filipino    is   capable   of    immediate    self- 
government,    and   therefore 
(a)   He  should  have  it. 

(F)  The  white  citizens  of  the  Southern   States  should   insure 
their   political   supremacy  because  they   are   competent,   qualified 
and  able  to  govern,  for 

1.  The  white  race  is  better  educated,  more  intelligent,  and 

more  capable  than  the  negro  race. 

2.  The  white  race  has  precedent  in  its  favor,  for  it  has  al- 

ways held  the  balance  of  power  and  governed  in  this 
country. 

3.  The  white  race  is  the  stronger  race  of  the  two,  for  they 

have  always  controlled  the  negro  race. 

(G)  On  this  proposition   [The  Chinese  Exclusion  Law  should 
be  extended   to  the  Japanese]    the  affirmative  contend    (i)    that 
unrestricted    Japanese    immigration    is    injurious    to    the    United 
States;     (2)    that  the  proposed   restriction  would  not  materially 
affect  our  relations  with  Japan,  and  would  be  a  benefit  to  her; 
and    (3)    that  the  proposed   restriction  is  justifiable,  practicable, 
expedient,  and  constitutional. 


CHAPTER  IX 

PERSUASION 

So  far  as  we  have  been  considering  chiefly  that 
part  of  debating  which  has  to  do  with  the  reason- 
ing processes,  which  is  directed  primarily  to  the 
mind,  and  results  in  conviction.  But  an  argument 
which  appeals  only  to  the  understanding  may  be 
barren  of  results.  The  cold  logic  of  Brutus  was 
easily  overcome  by  the  persuasive  appeals  of 
Antony.  For  the  hearer  to  accept  your  reasoning 
is  one  thing,  but  for  him  to  cast  aside  his 
prejudices  and  inertia  is  another  thing.  You  want 
him  to  accept  your  argument  in  fact  as  well  as  in 
theory ;  in  other  words,  to  act  upon  it,  be  the  action 
expressed  in  the  verdict  of  a  jury,  by  a  vote  in  a 
deliberative  body,  or  by  any  other  line  of  conduct. 
It  would  take  little  argument,  for  instance,  to  con- 
vince the  ordinary  citizen  that  he  should  exercise 
his  right  of  suffrage;  but  something  more  might 
be  needed  to  impel  him  to  go  to  the  polls  on  a  par- 
ticular election  day.  That  part  of  debating  which 
wins  the  disposition  of  the  hearers,  directs  motives, 
arouses  emotions,  and  touches  the  springs  of  action 
is  called  persuasion.  The  importance  of  Persuasion 
in  debate  cannot  be  overestimated,  for  it  is  the 

(194) 


PERSUASION  195 

climax  of  all  argument  proper.  "Is  it  not,"  says 
Emerson,  "  the  end  of  eloquence,  to  alter  in  a  pair 
of  hours,  perhaps  in  a  half-hour's  discourse,  the 
convictions  and  habits  of  years?"  And  yet,  unlike 
the  processes  of  pure  conviction,  the  sources  of  per- 
suasion are  too  ill-defined  and  elusive  for  any  sys- 
tematic treatment.  All  reasonable  men  reason  sub- 
stantially alike.  But  men  act  from  different  mo- 
tives; and  in  the  use  of  persuasion  in  debate  much 
must  depend  upon  the  individual  debater's  tact  in 
appreciating  the  particular  motives  that  appertain 
to  a  jparticular  audience. 

Generally  considered,  persuasion  has  its  source 
in  these  three  elements :  ( I )  In  appeals  to  the 
emotions,  growing  out  of  the  argument  proper ;  (  2 ) 
in  the  rhetorical  qualities  of  spoken  discourse — 
how  a  thing  is  said;  and  (3)  in  the  delivery — the 
earnestness  and  personality  of  the  speaker. 

APPEALS  TO  THE  EMOTIONS 

All  the  elements  named  may  contribute,  of 
course,  in  appealing  to  the  emotions,  but  reference 
is  now  made  to  those  appeals  which  grow  out  of 
the  argument  proper.  For  any  lasting  effect,  ap- 
peals to  the  feelings  should  first  be  founded  on 
reason.  Otherwise,  such  appeals  are  merely  tran- 
sitory— they  cease  as  soon  as  the  emotions  aroused 


196  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

are  spent.  Further,  unless  conviction  either  pre- 
cedes or  accompanies  an  emotional  appeal,  the  lat- 
ter is  usually  ineffective.  Such  is  the  case,  at  least, 
with  an  audience  of  even  ordinary  intelligence,  for 
mere  emotionalism  becomes  less  and  less  potent  as 
civilization  advances.  To  move  men,  you  must 
show  them  some  reason  for  their  being  aroused. 
This  fact  is  frequently  overlooked  in  student  debat- 
ing. Many  so-called  arguments  are  little  more  than 
a  collation  of  popular  phrases  gleaned  from  parti- 
san newspapers.  Thus,  a  trust  is  an  "octopus,"  the 
Standard  Oil  Company  "  a  grinding  monopoly,"  a 
"robber  tariff"  is  inflicting  untold  injuries  on  the 
"suffering  masses,"  and  so  on,  when  perhaps  the 
very  question  for  debate  requires  evidence  to  estab- 
lish the  truth  of  these  question-begging  phrases. 
Appeal  to  feeling  should  follow  evidence,  not  re- 
place it ;  first  show  the  facts  which  make  out  a  case 
for  appeal.  Knowledge,  feeling,  volition,  action: 
this  is  the  normal  order  for  the  normal  individual. 
Certain  exigencies  in  debate  may  needs  change  this 
order,  but  the  general  rule  is  that  "emotion  is  con- 
ditional on  apprehension,  volition  on  emotion,  ac- 
tion on  volition." 

Generally  speaking, — for  every  argument,  again, 
is  a  case  by  itself, — there  are  three  ways  in  which 
emotional  appeals  may  be  made:  (i)  By  an  ex- 
hibition of  one's  own  feelings;  (2)  by  a  direct  ap- 


PERSUASION  197 

peal  to  the  emotions  of  the  hearers,  and  (3)  by  an 
indirect  appeal. 

Personal  Exhibition  of  Feeling. — By  exhibiting 
emotions  ourselves  we  may  sometimes  arouse  cor- 
responding emotions  in  others.  To  be  effective, 
however,  emotional  demonstrations  must  impress 
the  audience  as  being  genuine, — and,  too,  the  feel- 
ings exhibited  must  have  behind  them  a  strong 
character  and  a  reputation  for  sincerity,  so  that  the 
hearers  feel  that  a  given  emotional  outburst  is  not 
a  mere  "patty-pan  ebullition."  Further,  emotional 
outbursts  must  be  spontaneous,  and  cannot  there- 
fore be  planned  beforehand.  A  primary  attribute 
of  genuine  feeling  is  the  absence  of  all  design.  If 
a  student,  in  preparing  an  address,  says  to  himself : 
"Here  is  a  good  opportunity  to  let  the  audience  see 
how  moved  I  am,"  his  effort  is  far  more  likely  to 
fail  than  to  succeed.  The  incident  of  Burke  casting 
down  a  dagger  in  the  House  of  Commons  was  felt 
to  be  theatrical,  and  it  consequently  failed  of  its  in- 
tended effect. 

Not  only  must  exhibitions  of  feeling  be  genuine 
and  spontaneous,  they  should  ordinarily  be  re- 
pressed rather  than  encouraged.  Men  generally 
are  most  moved  by  an  impression  of  reserved  force. 
It  was  a  maxim  with  Webster  "that  violence  of 
language  is  indicative  of  feebleness  of  thought  and 


198  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

want  of  reasoning  power,  and  it  was  his  practice 
rather  to  understate  thfti  overstate  the  strength  of 
his  confidence  in  the  soundness  of  his  own  argu- 
ments and  the  logical  necessity  of  his  conclusions. 
He  kept  his  auditor  constantly  in  advance  of  him, 
by  suggestion  rather  than  by  strong  asservation,  by 
a  calm  exposition  of  considerations  which  ought-  to 
excite  feeling  in  the  heart  of  both  speaker  and 
hearer,  not  by  an  undignified  and  theatrical  exhibi- 
tion of  passion  in  himself."  * 

Direct  Appeal. — In  a  direct  appeal  to  the  hear- 
ers' emotions  the  speaker  says  in  substance:  "You 
ought  to  feel  so  and  so  about  this  matter."  This 
method,  often  essayed  by  the  tyro  in  public  speak- 
ing, is  usually  in  itself  ineffective.  Men's  feelings 
are  not  aroused  simply  by  an  appeal  resting  on  the 
assertion  that  they  should  be.  The  query  in  the 
mind  of  a  hearer  always  is,  Why?  And  the  emo- 
tions can  be  stirred  only  by  an  argument  that  shows 
the  reason,  or  by  concrete  cases  that  affect  the  im- 
agination, or  both. 

Indirect  Appeal. — The  indirect  appeal,  then,  is 
usually  the  most  effective  method  of  persuasion.  In- 
stead of  a  personal  exhibition  of  his  own  feelings, 
trusting  to  the  sympathetic  response  of  his  audi- 

1  Marsh,  "Lectures  on  the  English  Language,"  p.  235. 


PERSUASION  199 

ence,  or  instead  of  a  direct  appeal  urging  his  hear- 
ers to  feel  as  he  does,  the  speaker  should  present 
the  facts,  incidents,  and  scenes  which  relate  to  his 
argument,  so  as  to  reproduce  in  others  the  same 
feelings  by  which  he  himself  is  moved.  This  is 
what  is  meant  by  an  indirect  appeal.  "Deductions 
have  no  power  of  persuasion.  The  heart  is  com- 
monly reached,  not  through  the  reason,  but  through 
the  imagination,  by  means  of  direct  impression,  by 
the  testimony  of  facts  and  events,  by  history,  by 
description.  Persons  influence  us,  voices  melt  us, 
looks  subdue  us,  deeds  inflame  us!"  The  deeds 
or  facts  which  are  closely  allied  to  one's  argument, 
and  which  may  properly  be  used  to  arouse  feeling, 
should  be  presented  and  allowed  to  speak  for  them- 
selves. The  presentation  should  be  in  sufficient  de- 
tail to  allow  time  to  produce  their  effect.  In  his 
third-day's  speech  during  the  trial  of  Warren 
Hastings,  Burke,  in  describing  the  cruelties  of  Debi 
Sing,  must  have  stirred  the  feelings  of  his  audience 
by  the  following  vivid  recital  of  details: 

But,  to  pursue  this  melancholy  but  necessary  detail.  I 
am  next  to  open  to  your  Lordships,  that  the  most  substan- 
tial and  leading  yeomen,  the  responsible  farmers,  the  paro- 
chial magistrates  and  chiefs  of  villages,  were  tied  two  and 
two  by  the  legs  together;  and  their  tormentors,  throwing 
them  with  their  heads  downwards,  over  a  bar,  beat  them 
on  the  soles  of  the  feet  with  rattans,  until  the  nails  fell 

2  Newman,  "Discussions  and  Arguments,"  p.  293. 


2OO  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

from  the  toes;  and  then  attacking  them  at  their  heads,  as 
they  hung  downward,  they  beat  them  with  sticks  and 
other  instruments  of  blind  fury,  until  the  blood  gushed 
out  at  their  eyes,  mouths,  and  noses.  Not  thinking  that 
the  ordinary  whips  and  cudgels,  even  so  administered, 
were  sufficient,  to  others  (and  often  also  to  the  same  who 
had  suffered  as  I  have  stated)  they  applied,  instead  of 
rattan  and  bamboo,  whips  made  of  the  branches  of  the 
bale-tree, — a  tree  full  of  sharp  and  strong  thorns,  which 
tear  the  skin  and  lacerate  the  flesh  far  worse  than  ordi- 
nary scourages.  ...  At  night,  these  poor  innocent  suf- 
ferers, these  martyrs  of  avarice  and  exortion,  were 
brought  into  dungeons;  and,  in  the  season  when  nature 
takes  refuge  in  insensibility  from  all  the  miseries  and 
cares  which  wait  in  life,  they  were  three  times  scourged, 
and  made  to  reckon  the  watches  of  the  night  by  periods 
and  intervals  of  tormment.  .  .  .  Days  of  menace,  insult, 
and  extortion,  nights  of  bolts,  fetters  and  flagellation, 
succeeded  to  each  other  in  the  same  round,  and  for  a  long 
time  made  up  all  the  vicissitudes  of  life  to  those  miserable 
people. 

There  is  danger,  however,  of  too  prolonged  de- 
tail, especially  if  the  facts  themselves  are  unpleas- 
ant. It  is  often  best  to  stimulate  the  imagination 
by  suggestive  details,  and. leave  the  hearers  to  com- 
plete the  picture.  In  contrast  to  the  foregoing, 
Burke  omits  a  detailed  description  of  the  horrors 
of  the  war  in  Carnatic  country,  but  gives  the  effects 
and  lets  them  speak  for  themselves: 

For  eighteen  months,  without  intermission,  this  destruc- 
t;on  raged  from  the  gates  of  Madras  to  the  gates  of  Tan- 


PERSUASION  2O I 

jore;  and  so  completely  did  these  masters  in  their  art, 
Hyder  Ali  and  his  more  ferocious  son,  absolve  themselves 
of  their  impious  vow,  that,  when  the  British  traversed,  as 
they  did,  the  Carnatic  for  hundreds  of  miles  in  all  direc- 
tions, through  the  whole  line  of  their  march  they  did  not 
see  one  man,  not  one  woman,  not  one  child,  not  one  four- 
footed  beast  of  any  description  whatever.  One  dead,  uni- 
form silence  reigned  over  the  whole  region. 

Adaptation  of  Appeal  to  Audience. — Any  ap- 
peal to  the  emotions,  to  be  successful,  must  of 
courSe  reach  the  particular  audience  addressed.  It 
must  result  in  action  on  the  part  of  the  hearers,  be 
the  action  merely  mental,  or  also  physical.  In  any 
case  the  action  desired  must  be  so  presented  to  the 
hearers  as  to  coincide  with  their  desires  and  inter- 
ests; and  this  is  accomplished  through  certain  in- 
termediate active  principles  called  motives.  Vari- 
ous attempts  have  been  made  to  classify  motives; 
as,  (i)  Duty  to  ourselves — pride,  prudence,  self- 
respect,  reputation,  integrity,  social  and  political 
ambition,  etc;  (2)  duty  to  others — tolerance, 
charitableness,  love  of  one's  family,  city,  State,  or 
country,  admiration  of  courage,  perserverance, 
nobleness,  etc;  (3)  duty  to  God,  which  com- 
prises the  highest  and  worthiest  impulses.  All 
these  are  possible  incentives  to  action,  but  the  clas- 
sification is  far  from  complete.  It  leaves  out  of 
consideration  the  lower  scale  of  motives, — such  as 


2O2  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

selfishness,  avarice,  anger,  revenge,  jealousy,  fear, 
hatred, — and  the  enumeration  of  the  more  worthy 
motives  could  be  extended  almost  indefinitely. 
Men  are  moved  by  a  great  variety  of  causes. 
What  will  move  one  audience  may  fail  to  move 
another.  What  seems  very  important  to  one  man 
will  appear  of  little  or  no  importance  to  another. 
A  speaker  needs  to  study  his  audience  both  col- 
lectively and  individually:  collectively,  for  the 
purpose  of  determining  the  general  class  of  mo- 
tives to  which  to  appeal;  and  individually, — which 
must  usually  be  done  during  the  progress  of  a 
speech, — for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  dif- 
ferent motives  that  actuate  individual  audi- 
tors. It  is  said  of  the  great  trial  lawyer,  Rufus 
Choate,  that  "no  advocate  ever  scanned  more 
watchfully  the  faces  of  his  hearers  while  speaking. 
By  long  practice  he  had  learned  to  read  thfcir  senti- 
ments as  readily  as  if  their  hearts  had  been  throb- 
bing in  glass  cases." 

Appeal  to  the  Highest  Motives  Possible. — Al- 
though the  speaker  has  the  whole  range  of  motives 
to  select  from,  yet  conscience,  as  well  as  tact  and 
common  sense,  should  guide  him  in  the  selection. 
In  the  first  place,  no  self-respecting  man  would  ever 
appeal  to  base  or  unworthy  motives.  Moreover, 
any  attempted  appeals  of  this  nature  ordinarily  de- 


PERSUASION  2O3 

feat  their  purpose,  for  men  generally,  even  when 
they  have  unworthy  motives,  do  not  like  to  be  re- 
minded of  this  fact.  And  the  real  persuader  must 
be  a  leader.  In  him  the  hearers  must  recognize 
an  exponent  of  the  universal  struggle  of  man  to  at- 
tain an  ideal — a  universal  desire  for  virtue  as  an 
impelling  motive.  He  must  therefore  not  pull  his 
audience  down  to  the  level  of  the  lowest  motives 
operating  in  them,  but  must  bring  them  up  to  the 
level  of  the  highest  active  motives.  Generally 
speaking,  then,  always  appeal  to  the  highest  mo- 
tives that  will  reach  your  particular  audience. 

Reverting  to  our  outline  classification,  an  appeal 
to  motives  belonging  in  the  first  class — duty  to  our- 
selves— is  frequently  natural  and  proper.  But  a 
speaker  should  not  rest  on  appeals  to  self-interest 
alone ;  they  should  be  linked  to  those  motives  lying 
in  the  next  class  mentioned — duty  to  others.  In 
any  question  of  policy,  as  we  have  seen,  these  two 
classes  of  motives  are  almost  always  present.  And 
whenever  it  can  be  shown  that  a  proposed  reform 
or  policy  accords  with  the  duty  both  to  ourselves 
and  to  others,  the  argument  has  far  more  persua- 
sive power  than  either  class  of  motives  would  have 
by  itself.  So,  whenever  the  subject  lends  itself  to 
appeals  to  the  highest  motives, — duty  to  God, — the 
opportunity  should  be  utilized  for  the  purpose  of 
persuasion.  It  should  be  remembered  that  the 


204  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

higher  the  motive  appealed  to,  the  more  lasting 
will  be  the  appeal  and  the  stronger  the  impulse  to 
action.  Hence  religious  motives,  as  history 
shows, — witness  the  early  Christian  martyrs,  the 
Crusaders,  the  Inquisition,  the  Huguenots,  and 
Puritans, — have  furnished  the  most  powerful  in- 
centives to  self-sacrificing  and  undaunted  action. 
When  aroused  by  spiritual  motives,  men  will  sac- 
rifice everything,  even  their  lives,  in  performing 
what  they  believe  to  be  their  duty  to  God. 

In  seeking  for  the  highest  usable  motives  related 
to  a  subject,  the  debater  should  aim  to  discover  and 
present  some  underlying  principle  germane  to  the 
question,  that  will  elevate  the  discussion  from  a 
narrow  viewpoint  to  a  broader  outlook,  from  the 
transitory  to  the  enduring,  from  the  temporal  to 
the  eternal.  Aim  to  introduce  in  the  debate  what 
has  been  termed  an  element  of  general  truth.  Try 
to  show  some  deeper  significance  in  the  question 
than  that  which  lies  upon  the  surface.  This  has 
ever  been  characteristic  of  great  debaters.  Some- 
one has  pointed  out  that  Burke  was  free  from 
that  quality  which  he  ascribed  to  Lord  George 
Sackville — uapt  to  take  a  sort  of  undecided,  equiv- 
ocal, narrow  ground,  that  evades  the  substantial 
merits  of  the  question,  and  puts  the  whole  upon 
some  temporary,  local,  accidental,  or  personal  con- 
sideration." It  has  been  said  of  Webster  that  the 


PERSUASION  205 

greatness  of  his  fame  lies  largely  in  the  fact  that 
he  never  spoke  except  on  great  themes.  "The 
highest  platform  eloquence,"  says  Emerson,  uis 
the  moral  sentiment.  It  is  what  is  called  affirma- 
tive truth,  and  has  the  property  of  invigorating 
the  hearer;  and  it  conveys  a  hint  of  our  eternity 
when  he  feels  himself  addressed  on  grounds 
which  will  remain  whenever  else  is  shaken,  and 
which  have  no  trace  of  time  or  place  or  party." 
So,  whenever  a  great  theme  which  offers  an  op- 
portunity for  an  appeal  to  some  high  and  con- 
trolling principle  presents  itself,  seize  upon  this 
and  use  it — both  for  the  foundation  and  the  cap- 
stone, it  may  be,  of  the  whole  argument. 

Persuasion  in  the  Introduction. — Turning  now 
to  the  main  divisions  of  the  complete  argument,  let 
us  see  how  persuasion  may  be  used  to  supplement 
conviction.  In  treating  of  the  brief,  which  concerns 
itself  primarily  with  the  reasoning  processes,  it  was 
said  that  "the  function  of  the  introduction  is  to  pre- 
pare the  minds  of  the  audience  for  the  subsequent 
argument  by  presenting  all  facts  and  explanations 
necessary  for  understanding  the  question,  pointing 
out  the  issues  in  the  discussion,  and  outlining  the 
proof  as  to  those  issues."  But  in  actual  debate  the 
function  of  the  introduction  is,  as  Cicero  says, 
"reddere  auditores  benevelos,  attentos,  do  tile s"  ;  it 


206  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

should  make  the  hearers  well-disposed  toward  the 
speaker,  stimulate  their  attention,  and  prepare  their 
minds  for  a  favorable  reception  of  what  is  to  fol- 
low. In  other  words,  the  speaker  must  at  the  out- 
set ally  himself  and  his  subject  with  the  interests  of 
his  audience.  Nowhere  in  a  speech  is  greater  tact 
and  resourcefulness  required  than  in  the  opening, 
for  unless  the  speaker  can  make  the  first  impres- 
sions favorable  to  himself  and  his  cause,  his  subse- 
quent argument  is  apt  to  go  for  naught.  Burke 
sometimes  antagonized  his  audience  at  the  outset; 
he  often  lacked  the  tact  of  other  great  debaters  in 
the  opening  passages  of  his  speeches.  He  "would 
have  been  pronounced  by  the  cautious  and  painstak- 
ing orators  of  the  ancient  world,  a  fool  for  his 
recklessness  of  all  expedients  of  conciliation  in  the 
introductions  of  many  of  his  parliamentary  ad- 
dresses. He  aggravated  hostility  by  defying  it.  He 
often  produced  it  by  inviting  it.  He  gave  occasion 
for  it  by  assuming  its  existence  and  answering  in 
kind.  On  one  occasion  he  said:  'Mr.  Speaker,  I 
rise  under  some  embarrassment  occasioned  by  a 
feeling  of  delicacy  toward  one  half  of  the  house, 
and  of  sovereign  contempt  for  the  other  half.' 
Cicero  would  have  pronounced  him  a  savage." 
On  the  other  hand,  note  the  skillful  appeal  of 
Sargent  S.  Prentiss  for  himself  and  his  client,  in 


PERSUASION  207 

the  introduction  to  his  speech  in  defense  of  Judge 
Wilkinson : 

I  came  before  you  an  utter  stranger,  and  yet  I  feel  not 
as  a  stranger  towards  you;  I  have  watched  during  the 
course  of  the  examination  the  various  emotions  which  the 
evidence  was  so  well  calculated  to  arouse  in  your  bosoms, 
both  as  men  and  as  Kentuckians;  and  when  I  beheld  the 
flush  of  honorable  shame  upon  your  cheeks,  the  sparkle  of 
indignation  in  your  eyes,  or  the  curl  of  scorn  upon  your 
lips,  as  the  foul  conspiracy  was  developed,  I  felt  that  years 
could  not  make  us  better  acquainted.  I  saw  upon  your 
faces  the  mystic  sign  which  constitutes  the  bond  of  union 
among  honest  and  honorable  men,  and  I  knew  that  I  was 
about  to  address  those  whose  feelings  would  respond  to 
my  own.  I  rejoiced  that  my  clients  were,  in  the  fullest 
sense  of  the  term,  to  be  tried  by  a  jury  of  their  peers.3 

Another  excellent  example  of  both  kinds  of  ap- 
peal— for  both  the  speaker  and  his  subject — is 
found  in  the  jury  plea  of  William  H.  Seward  in  de- 
fense of  William  Freeman,  a  demented  negro 
who  had  committed  a  triple  murder  near  Auburn, 
N.  Y.,  and  against  whom  there  was  intense  popular 
indignation,  Mr.  Seward  also  incurring  marked 
hostility  against  himself  for  undertaking  f!he 
defense : 

I  plead  not  for  a  murderer.  I  have  no  inducement,  no 
motive  to  do  so.  I  have  addressed  my  fellow-citizens  in 

8  "Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  p.  88. 


208  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

many  various  relations,  when  rewards  of  wealth  and  fame 
awaited  me.  I  have  been  cheered  on  other  occasions  by 
manifestations  of  popular  approbation  and  sympathy;  and 
where  there  was  no  such  encouragement  I  had  at  least  the 
gratitude  of  him  whose  cause  I  defended.  But  I  speak 
now  in  the  hearing  of  a  people  who  have  prejudged  the 
prisoner,  and  condemned  me  for  pleading  in  his  behalf. 
He  is  a  convict,  a  pauper,  a  negro,  without  intellect,  sense, 
or  emotion.  My  child,  with  an  affectionate  smile;  dis- 
arms my  care-worn  face  of  its  frown  whenever  I  cross  my 


My 

horse  recognizes  me  when  I  fill  his  manger.  But  what 
reward,  what  gratitude,  what  sympathy  and  affection  can 
I  expect  here?  There  the  prisoner  sits.  Look  at  him. 
Look  at  the  assemblage  around  you.  Look  at  their  ill- 
suppressed  censures  and  their  excited  fears,  and  tell  me 
where,  among  my  neighbors  or  my  fellow-men,  where, 
even  in  his  heart,  I  can  expect  to  find  the  sentiment,  the 
thought,  not  to  say  of  reward  or  of  acknowledgment,  but 
even  of  recognition.  I  sat  here  two  weeks  during  the 
preliminary  trial.  I  stood  here,  between  the  prisoner  and 
the  jury,  nine  hours,  and  pleaded  for  the  wretch  that  he 
was  insane  and  did  not  even  know  he  was  on  trial ;  and 
when  all  was  done,  the  jury  thought,  at  least  eleven  of 
them  thought,  that  I  had  been  deceiving  them,  or  was 
self-deceived.  They  read  signs  of  intelligence  in  his 
idiotic  smile,  and  of  cunning  and  malice  in  his  stolid  in- 
sensibility. They  rendered  a  verdict  that  he  was  sane 
enough  to  be  tried — a  contemptible  compromise  verdict  in 
a  capital  case;  and  then  they  looked,  with  what  emotions 
God  and  they  only  know,  upon  his  arraignment.  The 


PERSUASION  209 

district  attorney,  speaking  in  his  adder  ear,  bade  him  rise, 
and,  reading  to  him  one  indictment,  asked  him  whether 
he  wanted  a  trial,  and  the  poor  fool  answered,  No.  Have 
you  counsel?  No.  And  they  went  through  the  same 
mockery,  the  prisoner  giving  the  same  answers,  until  a 
third  indictment  was  thundered  in  his  ears,  and  he  stood 
before  the  court  silent,  motionless,  and  bewildered.  Gen- 
tlemen, you  may  think  of  this  evidence  what  you  please, 
bring  in  what  verdict  you  can,  but  I  asseverate,  before 
Heaven  and  you,  that,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and 
belief,  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  does  not,  at  this  moment, 
know  why  it  is  that  my  shadow  falls  on  you  instead  of  his 
own.  ...  I  speak  with  all  sincerity  and  earnestness,  not 
because  I  expect  my  opinion  to  have  weight,  but  I  would 
disarm  the  injurious  impression  that  I  am  speaking  merely 
as  a  lawyer  speaks  for  his  client.  I  am  not  the  prisoner's 
lawyer.  I  am,  indeed,  a  volunteer  in  his  behalf,  but 
society  and  mankind  have  the  deepest  interest  at  stake. 
I  am  the  lawyer  for  society,  for  mankind,  shocked  beyond 
the  power  of  expression  at  the  scene  I  have  witnessed  here 
of  trying  a  maniac  as  a  malefactor.4 

In  school  and  college  debating  the  young  speaker 
seldom  has  to  grapple  with  a  hostile  audience.  His 
efforts  must  largely  be  directed  to  appeals  in  behalf 
of  his  subject.  In  any  event,  a  direct  appeal  for 
personal  sympathy  is  always  dangerous.  It  re- 
quires great  care  and  tact,  and  must  always  be  the 
dignified  appeal  of  a  strong  man  to  his  equals.  But 
an  appeal  in  behalf  of  one's  subject  may  be  made 

*  "Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  pp.  154-155. 
14 


210  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

more  openly.  Thus,  the  lawyer  may  appeal  for 
sympathy  for  his  client;  the  legislator,  for  his 
measure;  the  reformer,  for  his  cause.  And  here 
again,  the  attitude  of  the  hearers  needs  to  be  an- 
ticipated. If  the  audience  is  prejudiced  against  the 
speaker's  side  of  a  question,  the  prejudice  needs  to 
be  dealt  with  at  the  outset  by  the  use,  it  may  be,  of 
the  argument  of  antecedent  probability,  by  showing 
that  the  prejudice  is  unfounded,  or  by  pointing  out 
the  hearers'  misapprehension  as  to  the  real  merits 
of  the  case,  and  thus  making  it  appear  that  speaker 
and  hearers  are,  after  all,  not  so  far  apart  as  might 
seem  at  first  glance.  Following  is  an  example  of 
a  persuasive  introduction  occurring  in  an  intercol- 
legiate debate.5  The  first  speaker  on  the  negative, 
arguing  before  a  Southern  audience  in  favor  of  the 
continued  enlistment  of  negroes  in  the  United 
States  army,  began  as  follows : 

In  view  of  the  unfortunate  Brownsville  affair  that  has 
occurred  so  recently  almost  in  your  very  midst,  and  in  the 
light  of  what  has  just  been  said,  it  may  seem  that  there  is 
but  one  side  to  this  question  that  negroes  are  unfit  to  serve 
in  the  army  and  that  their  enlistment  should  at  once  be 
discontinued.  And  yet,  upon  reflection,  it  will  doubtless 
be  conceded  that  at  least  something  can  be  said  in  support 
of  the  continuance  of  a  policy  that  has  been  followed  in 

5  The  Texas-Missouri  Debate  of  1907. 


PERSUASION  2 1 1 

this  country  ever  since  the  birth  of  our  Nation.  What  we 
ask  and  what  we  know  we  will  receive  is  simply  a  fair 
and  impartial  hearing  of  a  few  points  which,  to  us,  seem 
worthy  of  consideration  in  a  discussion  of  this  question. 

It  may  not  be  inappropriate  to  remark  at  the  outset  that 
Missouri  is  more  of  a  Southern  than  a  Northern  State; 
that  the  negro  problem  is  present  with  us  as  it  is  with 
you;  that  negroes  constitute  one-third  of  the  population 
of  the  city  of  Columbia,  where  the  University  is  located ; 
that  Missouri  was  a  slave  State;  and  that  it  is  the  son 
of  an  ex-Confederate  soldier  who  is  speaking  to  you  now. 
Sc.  in  sentiment,  tradition,  and  in  opportunities  for  study- 
ing the  question  the  affirmative  and  negative  stand  upon 
common  ground.  Not  as  Northerner  and  Southerner, 
but  as  Southerner  and  Southerner,  are  we  endeavoring  to 
reach  the  proper  solution  of  the  question  before  us. 

We  fully  agree  with  the  gentlemen  of  the  affirmative 
that  the  race  question  is  the  most  serious  problem  now 
confronting  the  American  people;  but,  as  we  have  faith 
in  the  future  of  American  civilization,  we  believe  that 
time  will  see  this  great  question  satisfactorily  settled.  Nor 
do  we  for  a  moment  believe  that  its  solution  wrill  come 
along  the  line  of  social  equality,  or  along  the  line  of  politi- 
cal equality,  but  rather  along  the  lines  of  equality  of 
service  and  equality  before  the  law.  It  is  because  we 
hope  that  some  day  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  will  dominate 
the  civilization  of  the  world  that  we  are  contending  for 
negro  soldiers.  If,  in  this  strenuous  age  of  commercial 
competition  and  racial  rivalry,  America  is  to  contribute 
toward  that  end,  she  must  use  every  element  of  her  popu- 
lation to  its  best  possible  advantage.  Every  individual 
and  every  class  of  individuals  must  perform  that  work  for 


212  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

which  they  are  best  fitted,  for  this  way  alone  lies  progress, 
prosperity,  industrial  peace,  and  National  success.6 

In  treating  of  the  brief,  it  was  remarked  that  the 
introduction  should  ordinarily  open  with  a  con- 
structive line  of  argument  for  one's  own  side,  rather 
than  with  refutation,  but  that  sometimes  circum- 
stances might  demand  a  reversal  of  this  order.  An 
example  of  such  reversal,  for  the  purpose  of  meet- 
ing the  demands  of  persuasion,  is  found  in  the 
argument  of  the  Income  Tax  case  before  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court,  in  1895.  James  C.  Carter, 
Esq.,  arguing  in  favor  of  the  constitutionality  of 
the  income  tax  law,  closed  as  follows : 

The  powers  of  this  Court  are  limited  as  well  as  those 
of  Congress,  and  those  limits  are  already  transgressed 
when  it  finds  itself  even  considering  whether  this  or  that 
view  of  a  question  of  political  economy,  or  of  the  wisdom 
of  taxation,  is  a  sound  one. 

These  suggestions  are  all  the  more  weighty  and  im- 
portant in  those  controversies  which,  like  the  present,  are 
calculated  to  arouse  the  interests,  the  feelings — almost 
the  passions — of  the  people,  form  the  subject  of  public 
discussion,  array  class  against  class,  and  become  the  turn- 
ing-points in  our  general  elections.  Upon  such  subjects 
every  freeman  believes  that  he  has  a  right  to  form  his  own 
opinion,  and  to  give  effect  to  that  opinion  by  his  vote. 
Nothing  could  be  more  unwise  and  dangerous — nothing 

6  By  courtesy  of  the  speaker,  Mr.  W.  F.  Woodruff,  of  the  Mis- 
souri team. 


PERSUASION  213 

more  foreign  to  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution — than  an 
attempt  to  baffle  and  defeat  a  popular  determination  by 
a  judgment  in  a  lawsuit.  When  the  opposing  forces  of 
sixty  millions  of  people  have  become  arrayed  in  hostile 
political  ranks  upon  a  question  which  all  men  feel  is  not 
a  question  of  law,  but  of  legislation,  the  only  path  of 
safety  is  to  accept  the  voice  of  the  majority  as  final.  The 
American  people  can  be  trusted  not  to  commit  permanent 
injustice;  nor  has  history  yet  recorded  an  instance  in 
which  governments  have  been  destroyed  by  attempts  of  the 
many  to  lay  undue  burdens  of  taxation  on  the  few.  The 
teachings  of  history  have  all  been  in  the  other  direction. 

But  if  an  overwhelming  majority,  in  an  effort  to 
accomplish  what  it  believes  to  be  justice,  finds  itself  sud- 
denly arrested  in  its  course  by  another  majority  of  a  body 
of  half  a  dozen  or  more  who  happen  to  hold  different 
opinions  upon  substantially  the  same  questions,  but  who 
assume  to  speak  with  a  different  authority,  and  to  utter 
the  voice  of  the  law,  the  consequences  can  hardly  fail  to 
be  disastrous  to  the  stability  of  the  law  itself.  Such  a 
triumphant  majority  will  find  its  way  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  its  ends  over  the  ruins,  it  may  be,  of  any  constitu- 
tion, or  of  any  court.  We  have  had  some  experiences  in 
our  history  of  the  futility  of  attempting  to  convert  politi- 
cal into  judicial  questions,  and  the  result  has  not  added  to 
the  authority  of  this  tribunal.  It  is  the  part  of  wisdom 
for  a  judicial  body  to  avoid  attempts  at  the  solution  of 
problems  which  must  and  will  be  finally  settled  in 
another  forum. 

In    reply,    the    opposing    attorney,    Joseph    H. 
Choate,  Esq.,  began  his  argument  as  follows: 

If  the  Court  please:    After  Jupiter  had  thundered  all 


214  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

around  the  sky,  and  had  leveled  everything  and  every- 
body by  his  prodigious  bolts,  Mercury  came  out  from  his 
hiding  place  and  looked  around  to  see  how  much  damage 
had  been  done.  He  was  quite  familiar  with  the  weapons 
of  his  learned  Olympian  friend;  he  had  often  felt  their 
force,  but  he  knew  that  it  was  largely  stage  thunder, 
manufactured  for  the  particular  occasion,  and  he  went 
his  round  among  the  inhabitants  of  Olympus  restoring  the 
consciousness,  and  dispelling  the  fears,  and  raising  the 
spirits  both  of  gods  and  men  who  had  been  prostrated  by 
the  crash.  It  is  in  that  spirit  that  I  follow  my  distin- 
guished friend;  but  I  shall  not  undertake  to  cope  with 
him  by  means  of  the  same  weapons,  because  I  am  not 
master  of  them. 

It  never  would  have  occurred  to  me  to  present  either  as 
an  opening  or  closing  argument  to  this  great  and  learned 
Court,  that  if  in  your  wisdom  you  found  it  necessary  to 
protect  a  suitor  who  sought  here  to  cling  to  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  and  invoke  the  protection  of  the  Constitu- 
tion which  was  created  for  us  all,  it  was  an  argument 
against  your  furnishing  such  relief  and  protection  that 
possibly  the  popular  wrath  might  sweep  the  Court  away. 
It  is  the  first  time  I  have  ever  heard  that  argument  pre- 
sented to  this  or  any  other  court,  and  I  trust  that  it  will 
be  the  last. 

Now,  I  have  had  some  surprises  this  morning.  I 
thought  until  to-day  that  there  was  a  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  that  the  business  of  the  executive  arm 
of  this  Government  was  to  uphold  that  Constitution.  I 
thought  that  this  Court  was  created  for  the  purpose  of 
maintaining  the  Constitution  as  against  unlawful  conduct 
on  the  part  of  Congress.  It  is  news  to  me  that  Congress 
is  the  sole  judge  of  the  measure  of  the  powers  confided  to 


PERSUASION  215 

it  by  the  Constitution,  and  it  is  also  news  to  me  that  the 
great  fundamental  principle  which  underlies  the  Consti- 
tution, namely,  the  equality  of  all  men  before  the  law, 
has  ceased  to  exist. 

If  your  Honors  please,  I  look  upon  this  case  with  very 
different  eyes  from  those  of  either  the  learned  Attorney- 
General  or  his  distinguished  associate  who  has  just  closed. 
I  believe  there  are  private  rights  of  property  here  to  be 
protected ;  that  we  have  a  right  to  come  to  this  Court  and 
ask  for  their  protection,  and  that  this  Court  has  a  right, 
without  asking  leave  of  the  Attorney-General  or  of  any 
counsel,  to  hear  our  plea. 

Persuasion  in  the  Discussion. — The  opening  and 
closing  of  a  speech  are  the  places  where  persuasion 
is  most  needed.  The  discussion,  or  body  of  the 
argument,  should  aim  first  of  all  to  prove  one's  case 
— to  convince.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  persua- 
sion has  no  place  here.  Indeed,  the  ideal  method 
of  using  persuasion  is  not  to  reserve  for  it  a  place 
by  itself,  but  to  let  it  permeate  the  whole  argument. 
Thus  the  oral  presentation  of  one's  argument 
should  be  something  more  than  a  mere  elaboration 
of  the  steps  in  the  proof,  as  contained  in  the  brief. 
The  skillful  debater  will  always  aim  to  give  his  rea- 
soning a  turn  personal  to  his  audience;  so  that, 
while  in  the  discussion  he  is  primarily  concerned 
with  reaching  the  understanding,  at  the  same  time 
he  does  not  fail  to  touch  the  emotions,  whenever 
his  proof  affords  an  opportunity.  A  few  detached 


2l6  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

sentences  in  Webster's  argument  in  the  White 
murder  trial  will  illustrate  how  persuasion  may  be 
diffused  throughout  the  body  of  the  discourse : 

Should  not  all  the  peaceable  and  well-disposed  natu- 
rally feel  concerned,  and  naturally  exert  themselves  to 
bring  to  punishment  the  authors  of  this  secret  assassina- 
tion ?  Was  it  a  thing  to  be  slept  upon  or  forgotten  ?  Did 
you,  gentlemen,  sleep  quite  as  quietly  in  your  beds  after 
this  murder  as  before?  .  .  .  Your  decision  in  this  case, 
they  say,  will  stand  as  a  precedent.  Gentlemen,  we  hope 
it  will.  We  hope  it  will  be  a  precedent  both  of  candor 
and  intelligence,  of  fairness  and  firmness;  a  precedent  of 
good  sense  and  honest  purpose  pursuing  their  investigation 
discreetly,  rejecting  loose  generalities,  exploring  all  the 
circumstances,  weighing  each,  in  search  of  truth,  and  em- 
bracing and  declaring  the  truth  when  found I  come 

now  to  the  testimony  of  the  father.  Unfortunate  old 
man!  Another  Lear  in  the  conduct  of  his  children. 
Another  Lear,  I  apprehend,  in  the  effect  of  his  distress 
upon  his  mind  and  understanding.  ...  It  is  a  point  on 
which  each  of  you  might  reason  like  a  Hale  or  Mans- 
field. 

Burke's  speeches  are  full  of  similar  examples. 
Following  is  a  single  illustration  from  his  speech 
on  "Conciliation" : 

The  question  with  me  is,  not  whether  you  have  a  right 
to  render  your  people  miserable,  but  whether  it  is  not 
your  interest  to  make  them  happy.  It  is  not  what  a  law- 
yer tells  me  I  may  do,  but  what  humanity,  reason,  and 
justice  tell  me  I  ought  to  do.  Is  a  politic  act  the  worse 


PERSUASION  217 

for  being  a  generous  one?  Is  no  concession  proper  but 
that  which  is  made  from  your  want  of  right  to  keep 
what  you  grant?  Or  does  it  lessen  the  grace  or  dignity 
of  relaxing  in  the  exercise  of  an  odious  claim  because  you 
have  your  evidence-room  full  of  titles,  and  your  maga- 
zines stuffed  with  arms  to  enforce  them?  What  signify 
all  those  titles,  and  all  those  amis  ?  Of  what  avail  are 
they,  when  the  reason  of  the  thing  tells  me  that  the  as- 
sertion of  my  title  is  the  loss  of  my  suit,  and  that  I  could 
do  nothing  but  wound  myself  by  the  use  of  my  own 
weapons  ? 

Persuasion  in  the  Conclusion. — Time  has  not 
changed  the  function  of  the  conclusion  as  stated  by 
Aristotle.  He  said  that  the  object  of  the  epilogue, 
or  conclusion,  was  fourfold:  First,  to  conciliate 
the  audience  in  favor  of  the  speaker  and  to  excite 
them  against  his  adversary;  secondly,  to  amplify 
and  diminish;  thirdly,  to  arouse  the  emotions;  and 
fourthly,  to  recapitulate.  Two  of  these  matters  be- 
long to  conviction,  the  other  two,  to  persuasion. 
To  recapitulate  and  to  "amplify  and  diminish"  are 
desirable,  in  order  to  unify  and  reenforce  the  ap- 
peal to  reason;  to  gain  sympathy  and  arouse  the 
feelings  are  desirable,  in  order  to  effect  the  desired 
action.  In  any  event,  it  is  in  the  conclusion  that 
the  debater  should  reach  the  height  of  persuasion. 
Here  he  must  aim  to  leave  a  lasting  impression  by 
marshaling  all  his  forces  and  making  a  final  appeal. 

In  an  argument  of  any  length,  a  concluding  sum- 


2l8  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

mary  is  almost  always  necessary  in  order  to  make 
the  proof  clear  and  forcible.  In  the  first  place,  it 
is  necessary  in  order  to  mass  and  unify  the  argu- 
ments as  a  whole ;  and  again,  it  is  necessary  in 
order  to  recall  to  the  minds  of  the  hearers  the  vari- 
ous points  previously  presented,  and  which  without 
some  sort  of  repetition  are  likely  to  be  slighted  or 
forgotten.  But  here  an  important  distinction  be- 
tween the  brief  and  the  oral  argument  is  to  be 
noted.  In  the  oral  argument,  one  should  not  sum- 
marize his  points  by  a  verbatim  repetition,  but 
should  seek  to  vary  the  expression,  and  thus  make 
old  material  seem  fresh. 

But  recapitulation  alone  is  frequently  not 
enough.  The  speaker  needs  to  take  advantage  of 
the  last  opportunity  to  win  the  sympathy  and  stir 
the  emotions  of  his  hearers.  In  summarizing,  he 
may  relate  his  argument,  as  a  whole  or  in  its  sub- 
divisions, to  the  prejudices  and  interests  of  his 
audience,  or  he  may  appeal  directly  to  the  emo- 
tions. No  rule  can  be  given  to  determine  the  rel- 
ative amount  of  conviction  and  persuasion  that 
should  be  used  in  the  conclusion  of  an  argument, 
for  this  must  depend  upon  the  relation  of  the 
speaker  to  his  subject  and  to  his  audience,  the  rela- 
tion of  the  audience  to  the  subject,  and  the  amount 
of  persuasion  which  has  been  introduced  in  the 
other  two  divisions  of  the  argument.  While  the 


PERSUASION  219 

conclusion  frequently  offers  an  opportunity  for 
proper  emotional  appeals,  it  should  not  be  over- 
done— as  witness  the  traditional  "spread-eagle" 
outburst  of  Fourth  of  July  orators.  Common 
sense  and  experience  must  be  the  guides.  The  val- 
uable opportunity  afforded  by  the  conclusion  is 
often  wasted  in  needless  repetitions  that  only  weary 
the  hearers,  and  by  emotional  appeals  that,  by 
reason  of  their  excess  and  non-adaptability  to  those 
addressed,  amuse  rather  than  move.  The  con- 
clusion should  be  "brief  without  incompleteness, 
concise  without  obscurity,  direct,  forceful,  compel- 
ling men  to  seize,  hold  and  act  upon  the  truth  es- 
tablished, or  to  abandon  the  error  overthrown."7 
Different  types  of  persuasive  conclusions  are 
shown  in  the  following  examples.  The  conclu- 
sion of  Webster's  jury  address  in  the  White  mur- 
der trial  contains  a  brief  summary  followed  by  a 
dignified  appeal  to  high  motives: 

Gentlemen,  I  have  gone  through  with  the  evidence  in 
this  case,  and  have  endeavored  to  state  it  plainly  and  fairly 
before  you.  I  think  there  are  conclusions  to  be  drawn 
from  it,  the  accuracy  of  which  you  cannot  doubt.  I  think 
you  cannot  doubt  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  formed  for 
the  purpose  of  committing  this  murder,  and  who  the  con- 
spirators were;  that  you  cannot  doubt  that  the  Crownin- 
shields  and  the  Knapps  were  the  parties  in  this  conspiracy; 

7MacEwan,  "The  Essentials  of  Argumentation,"  p.  262. 


220  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

that  you  cannot  doubt  that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  knew 
that  the  murder  was  to  be  done  on  the  night  of  the  6th 
of  April;  that  you  cannot  doubt  that  the  murderers  of 
Captain  White  were  the  suspicious  persons  seen  in  and 
about  Brown  Street  on  that  night;  that  you  cannot  doubt 
that  Richard  Crowninshield  was  the  perpetrator  of  .that 
crime;  that  you  cannot  doubt  that  the  prisoner  at  the 
bar  was  in  Brown  Street  on  that  night.  If  there,  then  it 
must  be  by  agreement,  to  countenance,  to  aid  the  perpe- 
trator. And  if  so,  then  he  is  guilty  as  PRINCIPAL. 

Gentlemen,  your  whole  concern  should  be  to  do  your 
duty,  and  leave  consequences  to  take  care  of  themselves. 
With  consciences  satisfied  with  the  discharge  of  duty,  no 
consequences  can  harm  you.  There  is  no  evil  that  we 
cannot  either  face  or  fly  from  but  the  consciousness  of 
duty  disregarded.  A  sense  of  duty  pursues  us  ever.  It 
is  omnipresent,  like  the  Deity.  If  we  take  to  ourselves 
the  wings  of  the  morning,  and  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts 
of  the  sea,  duty  performed,  or  duty  violated,  is  still  with 
us,  for  our  happiness  or  our  misery.  If  we  say  the  dark- 
ness of  duty,  to  pain  us  wherever  it  has  been  violated,  and 
obligations  are  yet  with  us.  We  cannot  escape  their 
power,  nor  fly  from  their  presence.  They  are  with  us  in 
this  life,  will  be  with  us  at  its  close;  and  in  that  scene 
of  inconceivable  solemnity  which  lies  yet  farther  onward, 
we  shall  still  find  ourselves  surrounded  by  the  conscious- 
ness of  duty,  to  pain  us  wherever  it  has  been  violated,  and 
to  console  us  so  far  as  God  may  have  given  us  grace  to 
perform  it. 

Following  is  the  conclusion  of  one  of  Lincoln's 
speeches  in  the  Lincoln-Douglas  debates: 

Henry  Clay,  my  beau-ideal  of  a  statesman,  the  man 


PERSUASION  221 

for  whom  I  fought  all  my  humble  life — Henry  Clay 
once  said  of  a  class  of  men  who  would  repress  all  ten- 
dencies to  liberty  and  ultimate  emancipation,  that  they 
must,  if  they  would  do  this,  go  back  to  the  era  of  our 
Independence,  and  muzzle  the  cannon  which  thunders  its 
anntal  joyous  return;  they  must  blow  out  the  moral 
lights  around  us;  they  must  penetrate  the  human  soul 
and  eradicate  there  the  love  of  liberty;  and  then,  and 
not  till  then,  could  they  perpetuate  slavery  in  this1  coun- 
try! To  my  thinking,  Judge  Douglas  is,  by  his  example 
and  vast  influence,  doing  that  very  thing  in  this  com- 
munity, when  he  says  that  the  negro  has  nothing  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  Henry  Clay  plainly 
understood  the  contrary.  Judge  Douglas  is  going  back 
Jo  the  era  of  our  Revolution,  and,  to  the  extent  of  his 
ability,  muzzling  the  cannon  which  thunders  its  annual 
joyous  return.  When  he  invites  any  people,  willing  to 
have  slavery,  to  establish  it,  he  is  blowing  out  the  moral 
lights  around  us.  When  he  says  he  "cares  not  whether 
slavery  is  voted  down  or  voted  up," — that  it  is  a  sacred 
right  of  self-government, — he  is,  in  my  judgment,  pene- 
trating the  human  soul  and  eradicating  the  light  of  reason 
and  the  love  of  liberty  in  this  American  people.  And 
now  I  will  only  say  that  when,  by  all  these  means  and 
appliances,  Judge  Douglas  shall  succeed  in  bringing  pub- 
lic sentiment  to  an  exact  accordance  with  his  own  views, 
when  these  vast  assemblages  shall  echo  back  all  these 
sentiment^  whe*  they  shall  come  to  repeat  his  views  and 
to  avow  his  principles,  and  to  say  all  that  he  says  on  these 
mighty  questions, — then  it  needs  only  the  formality  of 
the  second  Dred  Scot*  detision,  which  he  endorses  in  ad- 
vance, to  make  slavery  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States — old 
as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South. 


222  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

My  friends,  that  ends  the  chapter.  The  Judge  can 
take  his  half  hour. 

The  following  conclusion  of  an  argument  before 
a  jury  is  yet  more  purely  persuasive : 

It  was  an  old  Roman  Commoner,  with  shaggy  hair  and 
grizzly  beard  and  bent  form  and  ragged  clothes,  who 
nearly  three  thousand  years  ago,  said:  "Romans,  I  am 
from  your  debtors'  prison.  Once  I  traded  on  your  streets, 
and  borrowed  and  paid  again.  One  day  I  was  surety 
for  a  friend  who  failed,  and  I,  too,  failing  to  make  good 
the  debt,  was  hurried  to  the  prison  cell.  Romans,  I  am 
free  now.  It  is  not  for  myself  I  speak  thus,  but  lest 
others  go  where  I  have  been,  I  would  abolish  such  a 
human  curse!"  His  story  moved  all  Rome!  That  prison 
was  abolished,  and  more  than  thirty  years  ago,  in  PennJ 
sylvania,  James  Buchanan  abolished  imprisonment  foj 
debt  by  a  powerful  appeal  in  his  State,  and  here  in  our 
State  the  intelligent  people  wiped  it  from  our  statute 
books,  and  still  a  barbarous  relic  of  false  pretenses  re- 
mains. 

And  here  is  the  Roman  Commoner  [my  client]  whf 
pleads  by  his  looks  and  acts,  "I  would  abolish  such  a 
curse."  What  has  he  done?  Deep  in  trade,  he  met  every 
dollar  ever  due,  even  to  the  day  of  his  leaving  for  Canada ; 
and  still  the  great  big  greedy  firms  bear  down  «n  him 
with  iron  hands,  to  crush  him  and  not  tnly  tt  htld  all 
he  has,  but  would  have  you  rob  him  of  the  last  bright 
jewel  of  his  life — his  good  name,  his  honor — and  brand 
him  as  a  fraud  and  bring  him  in  t*  prfve  he  is  a  fraud ! 
This  is  the  grandest  audacity  I  ever  saw.  It  is  nft 
enough  to  take  his  goods  and  break  him  up,  but  they  take 


PERSUASION  223 

his  boy's  mortgage,  his  exemption  that  the  State  allows, 
and  all  he  had,  and  cry  for  more!  This  is  not  fair.  It 
is  wrong.  It  is  cruel.  It  is  barbarous.  It  is  inhuman. 
It  is  absolutely  cruel.  It  is  mean,  gentlemen ! 

They  claim  he  secured  us  on  all  he  had,  while  they  are 
his  friends.  They  his  friends!  Well,  gentlemen,  when  I 
am  fifty-five,  and  want  a  friend,  and  have  had  one  who 
trusted  me  to  goods  and  money,  one  I  confided  in,  and  I 
secure  him,  and  others  get  jealous  and  arrest  me,  try  to 
put  me  in  the  debtors'  prison,  drive  me  from  home,  seven 
long  months  in  poverty  and  rags,  try  to  buy  me  to  lie 
and  swear  to  lying  statements,  and  at  last  promise  to  pay 
my  friend,  save  some  for  my  boy,  and  I  come  home  and 
find  their  attachments  have  taken  all,  and  all  is  gone! 
which  shall  I  chose  for  a  friend?  This  is  worse  than 
border  ruffians  do.  .  .  .  Restore  him  his  character, 
gentlemen;  and  think  in  after  years,  how  you  hardened 
not  your  hearts.6 

RHETORICAL  QUALITIES 

There  are  certain  rhetorical  qualities  which 
should  characterize  matter  to  be  addressed  to  a 
hearer,  as  distinguished  from  that  to  be  addressed 
to  a  reader.  These  qualities  may  be  grouped  un- 
der the  threefold  classification  of  ( i )  Concrete- 
ness,  (2)  Direct  Discourse,  and  (3)  Emphasis. 

Concreteness. — The  concrete  as  opposed  to  the 
abstract,  the  specific  as  opposed  to  the  general,  the 

8  Donovan,  "Modern  Jury  Trials,"  p.  671- 


224  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

particular  example  of  a  thing  as  opposed  to  a  gen- 
eral statement  regarding  a  class  of  things — these 
are  especially  desirable  in  oral  discourse.  We  have 
noted  the  necessity  of  facts  and  the  desirability  of 
examples,  as  means  of  proof;  but  concreteness,  as 
an  element  of  persuasion,  serves  the  further  pur- 
poses of  clarifying  the  proof  and  of  stimulating  in- 
terest. Facts  and  illustrations  should  always  either 
precede  or  follow  abstract  theories  and  general 
statements.  One  of  the  six  rules  laid  down  by 
Colonel  Higginson  for  speech-making  generally 
may  well  be  followed  literally  by  the  debater: 
"Plan  beforehand  for  one  good  fact  and  one  good 
illustration  under  each  head  of  your  speech" 
Among  the  manifold  sayings  attributed  to  Lincoln, 
the  following  tallies  closely  enough  with  his  meth- 
ods to  be  true:  "They  say  I  tell  a  great  many 
stories.  I  reckon  I  do,  but  I  have  found  in  the 
course  of  a  long  experience  that  common  people, 
take  them  as  a  run,  are  more  easily  informed 
through  the  medium  of  a  broad  illustration  than  in 
any  other  way,  and  as  to  what  the  hypercritical 
few  may  think,  I  don't  care." 

Illustrations,  as  we  have  seen,  are  ntt  necessarily 
argument,  but  they  make  an  argument  clearer  anil 
otherwise  more  effective.  A  single  anecdote,  tr 
story,  or  illustration  has  often  proved  mtre  effec- 
tive than  much  abstract  reasoning,  however  Itg- 


PERSUASION  225 

ical  and  sound.  If  the  illustration  has  humor  in  it, 
all  the. better;  but  the  wise  debater  will  not  go  out 
of  his  way  to  be  humorous,  or  hunt  for  far-fetched 
illustrations.  He  must  be  careful  to  make  sure 
that  an  illustration  is  apt,  otherwise  a  dangerous 
opening  is  left  for  a  different  application  by  an  op- 
ponent. "Illustrations  rightly  used  assist  argu- 
ment, help  the  hearers  to  remember,  stimulate  the 
imagination,  rest  the  audience  by  changing  the 
faculties  employed  in  listening,  reach  through  dif- 
ferent avenues  different  hearers,  and  bridge  difficult 
places  by  teaching  parabolically  truth  to  which  men 
would  refuse  to  listen  if  presented  directly.  To  be 
effective  they  must  be  various, .of ten  homely,  accu- 
rate, and  apt,  and  prompt."9  And  to  quote  Lin- 
coln again:  "I  believe  I  have  the  popular  reputa- 
tion of  being  a  story-teller,  but  I  do  not  deserve  the 
name  in  its  general  sense,  for  it  is  not  the  story  it- 
self, but  its  purpose,  or  effect,  that  interests  me.  I 
often  avoid  a  long  and  useless  discussion  by  others 
or  a  laborious  explanation  on  my  own  part  by  a 
short  story  that  illustrates  my  point  of  view.  So, 
too,  the  sharpness  of  a  refusal  or  the  edge  of  a  re- 
buke may  be  blunted  by  an  appropriate  story,  so  as 
to  save  wounded  feeling  and  yet  serve  the  purpose. 
No,  I  am  not  simply  a  story-teller,  but  story-telling 

9Lyman  Abbott,  "Henry  Ward  Beecher,"  p.  361, 
'5 


226  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

as  an  emollient  saves  me  much  friction  and  dis- 
tress." 10 

A  study  of  the  methods  employed  by  successful 
lecturers  and  revivalists,  such  as  John  B.  Gough, 
Dwight  L.  Moody,  and  Sam  Jones,  shows  that 
much  of  their  power  lay  in  the  emotion  aroused  by 
their  vivid  stories  and  dramatic  illustrations..  Na- 
poleon, in  his  Egyptian  campaign,  made  a  concrete 
appeal  to  his  troops  by  pointing  to  the  pyramids 
and  exclaiming:  "Soldiers,  forty  centuries  look 
down  upon  you !"  After  the  defeat  of  the  Union 
army  at  Bull  Run,  General  Garfield  quieted  the  ter- 
ror-stricken mob  in  New  York  by  his  oracular 
"God  reigns  and  the  government  at  Washington 
still  lives."  Governor  Rusk  dispersed  a  different 
mob  in  Milwaukee  by  declaring:  "If  these  streets 
are  not  cleared  in  two  minutes,  I'll  order  the  mil- 
itia to  let  daylight  into  every  one  of  you."  Mr. 
Burchard's  "Rum,  Romanism,  and  Rebellion" 
speech  defeated  Blaine  for  the  Presidency.  And 
so  illustrations  might  be  multiplied  to  show  the 
effectiveness  of  translating  a  general  argument  into 
a  concrete  statement.  A  speaker  who  couches  all 
his  statements  in  general  terms  will  soon  make  any 
audience  drowsy,  while  concrete  cases,  by  arousing 
distinct  images  in  the  mind,  will  at  least  keep  the 

10  Silas  W.  Burt,  in  the  Century  Magazine  for  February,  1907. 


PERSUASION  227 

hearers  awake.  Instead  of  saying  that  the  British 
Empire  is  world-wide  in  extent,  orators  are  fond  of 
saying  that  the  sun  never  sets  on  the  English  flag; 
or,  as  Webster  once  expressed  it,  an  empire  that 
1  'has  dotted  over  the  surface  of  the  whole  globe  her 
possessions  and  military  posts,  whose  morning 
drumbeat,  following  the  sun  and  keeping  company 
with  the  hours,  circles  the  earth  with  one  continu- 
ous and  unbroken  strain  of  the  martial  airs  of  Eng- 
land." So,  images  of  individuals — specific  in- 
stances— loom  up  larger  in  the  imagination  than 
those  of  classes.  The  general  term  calls  up  an  in- 
definite image,  the  particular  term  a  definite  image. 
Instead  of  speaking  of  "alien  races,"  the  effective 
debater  will  say  "Chinese  and  Italians."  Instead  of 
discoursing  on  agricultural  conditions  in  general,  he 
will  mention  corn  or  potatoes  or  pigs;  the  homelier 
the  concrete  example,  so  that  it  be  apt,  the  bet- 
ter. Herbert  Spencer  advises  us  to  avoid  such  sen- 
tences as,  "In  proportion  as  the  manners,  customs, 
and  amusements  of  a  nation  are  cruel  and  barbar- 
ous, the  regulations  of  their  penal  code  will  be  se- 
vere," and  to  say  instead,  "In  proportion  as  men 
delight  in  battles,  bull-fights,  and  combats  of  gladi- 
ators, they  will  punish  by  hanging,  burning,  and  the 
rack."  During  the  Chicago  riots  of  1894,  when 
President  Cleveland  was  being  criticized  for  em- 
ploying Federal  troops  to  ensure  unhindered  mail 


228  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

service,  a  speaker  appealed  to  the  imagination  of 
his  hearers  and  aroused  them  to  enthusiasm  by  us- 
ing this  concrete  statement:  "If  necessary,  every 
regiment  in  the  United  States  army  must  be  called 
out,  that  the  letter  dropped  by  the  girl  Jenny,  at 
some  country  post-office  back  in  Maine,  may  go  on 
its  way  to  her  lover  in  San  Francisco  without  a 
finger  being  raised  to  stop  it!"  Similarly,  a 
speaker  attempting  to  show  that  with  the  aid  of  a 
ship  canal  New  Orleans  would  become  the  ship- 
ping port  for  the  Middle  West,  used  the  following 
illustration:  "Hills  and  valleys  aside,  if  you  were 
to  kick  off  a  barrel  of  flour  at  Minneapolis,  it 
would  roll  to  New  Orleans." 

The  direct  presentation  or  concrete  illustration 
of  an  object,  instead  of  a  description  of  it,  makes 
an  argument  more  comprehensible  and  impressive 
to  the  average  mind.  When  a  lawyer,  for  ex- 
ample, brings  a  suit  for  damages  against  a  railroad 
company  for  an  injury  sustained  by  his  client  at  a 
grade  crossing,  he  presents  to  the  jury  maps  or 
photographs  of  such  crossing,  also  the  torn  pieces 
of  clothing  resulting  from  the  accident,  and,  it  may 
be,  the  actual  injury  inflicted  upon  his  client.  In 
like  manner,  President  Roosevelt  attracted  unusual 
attention  to  his  special  message  to  Congress  re- 
garding the  Panama  Canal,  by  submitting  as  a 
part  of  the  message  numerous  photographs  illus- 


PERSUASION  229 

trating  various  phases  of  the  problem  of  construc- 
tion. So,  when  the  Pure  Food  bill  was  before 
Congress  in  1906,  Representative  Mann,  of  Illi- 
nois, procured  packages  containing  impure  food- 
stuffs and  had  them  on  a  table  before  him  during 
his  argument;  and  it  was  claimed  that  this  method 
of  concrete  presentation  did  more  to  turn  the  tide 
in  favor  of  the  bill  than  any  other  one  thing. 

Concreteness  is  especially  necessary  in  dealing 
with  statistics.  In  the  establishment  of  one's  proof 
statistics  must  often  be  employed,  but  in  debate,  as 
distinguished  from  the  written  argument,  they 
should  be  "heard  and  not  seen."  To  recite  a  table 
of  figures  it  is  not  only  udry"  to  a  listener,  but  usu- 
ally unintelligible.  The  debater  should  select  the 
point  essential  to  his  argument,  and  put  this  in  a 
brief  and  interesting  form.  Figures  should  usu- 
ally be  presented  in  relative  terms,  or  in  terms  of 
percentage.  In  any  event,  some  standard  of  com- 
parison should  always  follow  statistics  stated  in 
the  abstract.  For  example :  "The  farm  value  of 
the  corn,  wheat,  and  oats  produced  in  the  United 
States  in  1896  amounted  to  $934,000,000;  in 
1906,  it  aggregated  $1,912,000,000.  The  value 
of  farm  animals  increased  from  $1,728,000,000 
in  1896  to  $3,675,000,000  in  1906.  Thus  we 
see  that  farm  values  have  more  than  doubled  in  a 
period  of  ten  years.  For  every  dollar  possessed 


230  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

by  the  American  farmer  in  1896  he  could  get  two 
dollars  in  return  in  1906.  And  in  the  wages  paid 
to  labor,  in  manufacturing,  and  in  our  foreign 
trade,  prosperity  during  this  period  has  moved 
along  on  the  same  double  track  lines."11  Again, 
figures  should  almost  always  be  stated  in  round 
numbers;  small  numbers  and  fractions  detract 
from  the  vividness.  Rhetorically  speaking,  fifty 
thousand  dollars  is  a  larger  sum  than  $50,138.47; 
half  a  million  dollars  is  far  more  comprehensible 
than  $500,239.62. 

The  relation  of  the  oral  argument  to  the  brief 
is  largely  a  problem  in  concreteness ;  and  it  is  a 
problem  demanding  great  care  and,  usually,  con- 
siderable practice.  In  all  argumentation  clearness 
is  essential,  and  this  has  presumably  been  secured 
in  the  brief.  But  the  brief  is  only  the  foundation 
and  framework  for  the  finished  argument.  Now, 
in  completing  the  structure — to  continue  our  fig- 
ure— there  are  these  two  extremes :  first,  in  making 
it  so  plain  and  severe  that  it  is  unattractive,  or  so 
jagged  and  seamy  as  to  expose  the  framework; 
and,  secondly,  in  making  it  so  ornamental — so 
adorning  it  with  foliage  and  flowers  and  accessor- 
ies— that  the  solidity  and  proportions  of  the 

11  Adapted  from  the  speech  of  Hon.  Joseph -G.  Cannon  in  open- 
ing the  Congressional  campaign  of  1906. 


PERSUASION  23 1 

. 

structure  are  completely  hidden.  On  the  one  hand, 
then,  the  general  outline  of  one's  proof  should  be 
made  apparent.  The  oral  argument  will  ordinarily 
follow  the  order  of  the  brief,  and  the  points  to  be 
enforced  and  their  logical  connections  must  be 
made  plain  to  the  hearers.  This  is  necessary  for 
securing  clearness,  and  it  is  a  necessity  that  the  in- 
experienced debater  is  apt  to  overlook.  In  most 
arguments  the  structure  is  not  clear  enough;  the 
hearers  are  not  made  to  understand,  at  each  step 
in  the  proof,  just  what  progress  has  been  made — 
just  how  a  particular  argument  is  related  to  argu- 
ments preceding  and  following.  But  while  struc- 
ture needs  to  be  emphasized,  it  should  not  and 
need  not  be  at  the  sacrifice  of  rhetorical  form  and 
finish.  One's  proof  is  not  to  be  presented  to  an 
audience  simply  by  a  fuller  statement,  in  a  bald 
and  literal  style,  of  the  headings  of  the  brief. 
Such  a  method  might  arrest  the  attention  of  a 
specialist  in  logic  or  mathematics,  but  would  ut- 
terly fail  to  convince  or  persuade  the  average 
listener.  In  short,  the  ideal  relation  of  the  oral 
argument  to  the  brief  would  be  such  that  the  hear- 
ers can  listen  to  the  argument  with  the  ease  and 
interest  with  which  one  listens  to  a  good  conver- 
sationalist, and  at  the  same  time  can  follow  its 
structure  as  readily  as  that  of  a  logical  syllogism 
or  a  geometrical  demonstration. 


232  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

Direct  Discourse. — Another  distinctive  charac- 
teristic of  spoken  discourse  is  that  it  partakes  of 
the  nature  of  direct  conversation,  as  of  man  to 
man.  In  a  written  argument  the  audience  is  un- 
known, or  indistinct;  in  debate,  the  audience  is 
usually  known  in  advance,  and  is  always  known — 
and  is  to  be  recognized — at  the  moment  of  speak- 
ing. This  direct  contact  of  hearers  and  speaker 
necessitates,  on  the  part  of  the  latter,  an  attitude  of 
directness.  The  speaker  must  keep  constantly  in 
mind,  and  must  so  impress  his  hearers,  that  he  is 
addressing  that  particular  audience,  not  only  in  the 
mass,  but  as  individuals.  This  relation  of  speaker 
to  hearers  should  result  in  the  frequent  use  of  di- 
rect discourse,  and  this,  in  turn,  in  the  use  of  direct, 
short  sentences,  of  the  present  tense,  and  of  the  in- 
terrogatory. The  direct,  short  sentence  is  an  aid 
to  clearness,  and  it  is  the  conversational  style.  This 
does  not  mean,  of  course,  the  disconnected, 
"chippy"  style  affected  by  some,  and  it  does  not 
preclude  the  use  of  the  periodic  sentence  in  making 
a  summary  or  in  leading  up  to  a  climacteric  con- 
clusion ;  it  simply  means  that  long,  involved,  over- 
formal  sentences,  which  sometimes  might  be  tol- 
erated in  an  essay,  should  never  be  used  in  a 
speech:  the  hearer  has  no  chance  to  review  state- 
ments at  his  leisure,  but  must  be  made  to  grasp  the 
thought,  with  the  least  possible  mental  effort,  as 


PERSUASION  233 

the  speaker  proceeds.  If  a  debater,  then,  bears  in 
mind  that  the  best  speaking  is  simply  direct,  strong 
talk,  and  so  frames  the  expression  of  his  argument 
in  his  best  conversational  style,  he  will  not  go  far 
amiss.  And  then,  if  you  put  a  statement  in  the 
present  tense  and  in  the  second  person,  you  at  once 
emphasize  this  conversational  relationship — you 
make  the  hearer  a  partner  in  the  discourse,  with  all 
the  interests  of  partnership.  Then  again,  if  you 
ask  a  man  a  question,  simple  respect  compels  his 
attention;  the  question-asking  method  comes  to 
him  with  far  more  directness  than  the  same  state- 
ment put  in  the  third  person  and  in  the  declarative 
form.  Note,  for  example,  the  difference  in  its  ef- 
fect upon  the  average  listener  between  saying,  "It 
has  been  claimed  by  some  that  the  policy  proposed 
has  only  a  practical  and  immediate  bearing,  but  it 
can  be  shown,  however,  that  such  is  not  the  case;'* 
and  this  form:  "Do  you  say  that  this  measure 
deals  only  with  the  case  now  before  us?  Let  us 
see  about  that."  The  rhetorical  question  in  debate 
conduces  to  variety  and  incisiveness.  So,  the  ques- 
tion-asking or  "Socratic"  method  as  between  the 
debaters  themselves  involves  the  application  of  this 
same  principle  of  directness,  and  has  the  further 
advantages  of  pointing  out  the  issues,  compelling 
a  direct  reply,  and  casting  the  burden  of  proof. 


234  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

Emphasis. — As  related  to  argument,  emphasis 
puts  stress  upon  the  significant  points  in  the  proof. 
The  main  issues  are  in  some  way  to  be  so  placed 
before  the  audience  as  to  leave  a  definite  impress. 
Among  the  ways  of  accomplishing  this  are  by  fre- 
quent summaries  and  proper  transitions,  and  by 
the  employment  of  iteration,  energy,  and  move- 
ment. 

We  have  noted  the  need  of  a  summary  in  the 
conclusion,  but  in  an  oral  argument  of  any  length 
intermediate  summaries,  at  the  conclusions  of  the 
main  divisions  of  the  proof,  are  usually  necessary. 
It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  even  the  most  atten- 
tive listener  cannot  readily  carry  in  mind  the  proof 
in  detail  without  some  aid  in  the  way  of  occasional 
recapitulation.  The  reader  can  look  back  and  re- 
view, when  necessary;  the  hearer  must  get  the 
thought  as  the  speaker  proceeds,  else  not  get  it  at 
all.  A  summary  enables  the  hearer  to  review,  in 
concise  form,  just  what  has  been  shown  up  to  a 
given  point.  Generally  speaking,  the  paragraph 
structure  of  the  finished  argument  will  correspond 
with  the  main  headings  of  the  brief;  and  a  good 
general  rule  is,  to  let  the  last  sentence  of  a  para- 
graph state  in  a  summary  form  the  main  thought 
embraced  in  such  paragraph.  This  should  not  be 
done  in  a  formal  and  stereotyped  fashion;  these 
concluding  sentences  should  be  varied  in  form,  now 


PERSUASION  235 

a  pure  summary  and  now  incorporating  the  per- 
suasive element,  as  the  nature  of  the  proof  de- 
mands. Then,  in  closing  up  a  larger  division  of 
the  arguments, — as,  the  I,  II,  III  propositions  in 
the  brief, — a  separate  paragraph  should  often  be 
incorporated  for  the  purpose  of  summarizing  the 
entire  proof  up  to  that  stage  of  the  argument,  and 
so  emphasizing  the  salient  points.  "The  essentials 
of  a  good  summary  are:  to  include  every  impor- 
tant point  made;  to  show  clearly  their  relations  to 
one  another;  to  give  each  its  due  emphasis;  to 
provide  one  or  more,  as  circumstances  require,  with 
persuasive  significance;  and  to  leave  perfectly 
clear  the  meaning  and  purposes  of  the  ideas  taken 
as  a  group."  Following  is  an  excellent  example 
of  the  concise,  simple,  and  direct  style  of  summary 
that  is  usually  most  desirable  for  use  at  the  inter- 
mediate stages  of  the  proof: 

These  are  some  of  the  serious  and  threatening  evils  of 
the  present  practice  of  treating  the  inferior  posts  of  ad- 
ministration as  party  prizes.  It  exasperates  party  spirit 
and  perverts  the  election.  It  tends  to  fill  the  public  ser- 
vice with  incapacity  and  corruption,  destroying  its  repu- 
tation and  repelling  good  men.  It  entices  Congress  to 
desert  the  duties  to  which  it  is  especially  designated  by 
the  Constitution,  and  tempts  the  Executive  to  perilous 
intrigue.12 

12  George  William  Curtis,  "Orations  and  Addresses,"  ii.  p.  43. 


236  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF   DEBATE 

The  following  from  the  "Letters  of  Junius"  is 
a  good  rapid  summary  of  a  preceding  discussion, 
with  a  touch  of  the  persuasive  element  added: 

This,  sir,  is  the  detail.  In  one  view,  behold  a  nation 
overwhelmed  with  debt;  her  revenues  wasted;  her  trade 
declining;  the  affections  of  her  colonies  alienated;  the 
duty  of  the  magistrate  transferred  to  the  soldiery;  a 
gallant  army,  which  never  fought  unwillingly  but  against 
their  fellow-subjects,  moldering  away  for  want  of  the 
direction  of  a  man  of  common  abilities  and  spirit;  and, 
in  the  last  instance,  the  administration  of  justice  become 
odious  and  suspected  to  the  whole  body  of  the  people. 
This  deplorable  scene  admits  but  of  one  addition — that 
we  are  governed  by  councils,  from  which  a  reasonable 
man  can  expect  no  remedy  but  poison,  no  relief  but  death. 

Closely  allied  to  the  summary,  and  not  infre- 
quently a  part  of  it,  is  the  transition.  The  sum- 
mary looks  backward,  the  transition  forward;  or, 
if  you  please,  the  transition  first  glances  backward, 
and  then  looks  forward.  "A  transition  is  a  form 
of  speech  by  which  the  speaker  in  a  few  words  tells 
his  hearers  both  what  he  has  said  already  and  what 
he  next  designs  to  say.  Where  a  discourse  consists 
of  several  parts,  this  is  often  very  proper  in  pass- 
ing from  one  to  another,  especially  when  the  parts 
are  of  considerable  length;  for  it  assists  the  hear- 
ers to  carry  on  the  series  of  the  discourse  in  their 
mind,  which  is  a  great  advantage  to  the  memory. 


PERSUASION  237 

It  is  likewise  a  great  relief  to  the  attention  to  be 
told  when  an  argument  is  finished  and  what  is  to  be 
expected  next."13  In  an  argument,  as  distinguished 
from  other  forms  of  composition,  the  opening  sen- 
tence of  a  paragraph  should  indicate  the  transition 
by  sort  of  a  combined  summary  and  partition. 
This  must,  of  course,  be  done  briefly ;  but  as  a  gen- 
eral rule,  though  by  no  means  an  inflexible  one,  let 
the  first  sentence  of  a  paragraph  state  the  connec- 
tion between  the  new  line  of  argument  and  that 
which  has  immediately  preceded  it,  and  indicate 
what  the  subject  of  the  paragraph  is  to  be.  This, 
again,  aids  the  hearers  in  following  you,  and  so 
is  one  means  of  emphasis.  Thus,  George  William 
Curtis,  in  an  argument  in  favor  of  civil  service  re- 
form, begins  a  paragraph  with  this  sentence: 

But  while  these  are  the  necessary  results  of  the  present 
system  of  admission,  both  upon  the  service  itself  and  upon 
the  character  of  those  who  are  employed  in  it,  there  are 
evils  to  Be  considered  still  more  serious. 

Iteration  is  another  important  means  of  empha- 
sis, and  it  is  much  more  allowable  in  oral  than  in 
written  discourse.  You  want  the  hearers  to  get 
the  strong  points  in  your  argument,  and  if  there  is 
any  reason  for  thinking  that  a  given  point  may 
not  have  been  made  clear  or  that  its  importance  is 

13  Ward,  "A  System  of  Oratory,"  ix.  p.  290. 


238  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF   DEBATE 

not  properly  appreciated  from  the  first  presenta- 
tion, say  it  again  and  again,  seek  for  another  way 
of  approach,  pound  away  by  the  use  of  varied  il- 
lustration— for  here  the  principle  of  concreteness 
can  well  be  applied.  In  his  reply  to  Lincoln,  in 
their  second  joint  debate,  the  following  repetitions 
by  Douglas,  for  example,  would  hardly  have  been 
allowable  had  the  argument  been  prepared  for 
readers  only: 

Thus  you  see  every  member  from  your  Congressional 
district  voted  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  they  were  pledged 
not  to  vote  for  him  unless  he  was  committed  to  the  doc- 
trine of  no  more  slave  States,  the  prohibition  of  slavery 
in  the  Territories,  and  the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law.  Mr.  Lincoln  tells  you  to-day  that  he  is  not  pledged 
to  any  such  doctrine.  Either  Mr.  Lincoln  was  then 
committed  to  those  propositions,  or  Mr.  Turner  violated 
his  pledges  to  you  when  he  voted  for  him.  Either  Lin- 
coln was  pledged  to  each  one  of  those  propositions,  or  else 
every  Black  Republican  representative  from  this  Con- 
gressional district  violated  his  pledge  of  honor  to  his 
constituents  by  voting  for  him.  I  ask  you,  Which  horn 
of  the  dilemma  will  you  take?  Will  you  hold  Lincoln 
up  to  the  platform  of  his  party,  or  will  you  accuse  every 
representative  you  had  in  the  Legislature  of  violating  his 
pledge  of  honor  to  his  constituents?  There  is  no  escape 
for  you.  Either  Mr.  Lincoln  was  committed  to  those 
propositions,  or  your  members  violated  their  faith.  Take 
either  horn  of  the  dilemma  you  choose.  There  is  no 
dodging  the  question.14 

"Bouton,  "The  Lincoln  and  Douglas  Debates,"  pp.  59-60. 


PERSUASION  239 

Anyone  who  has  listened  to  the  arguments  of 
the  most  successful  trial  lawyers  must  have  noted 
that  iteration  is  a  common  device  for  gaining  em- 
phasis. Early  in  Greek  oratory,  indeed,  its  value 
was  recognized: 

A  striking  trait  of  Isaeus  [420-350  B.  c.]  in  the 
province  of  argument  is  iteration;  and  the  preference  of 
emphasis  to  form  which  this  implies  is  worth  notice  as 
suggesting  how  the  practical  view  of  oratory  was  begin- 
ning to  prevail  over  the  artistic.  Sometimes  the  repetition 
is  verbal — an  indignant  question  or  phrase  occurs  again 
and  again,  where  Isocrates  would  have  abstained  from 
using  it  twice.  More  often  it  is  an  argument  or  a  state- 
ment which  the  speaker  aims  at  impressing  on  the 
hearers  by  urging  it  in  a  series  of  different  forms  and 
connections.  Or  even  a  document  cited  at  the  outset,  is 
read  a  second  time,  as  if  to  make  the  jury  realize  more 
vividly  that  a  circle  of  proof  has  been  completed.15 

It  should  be  understood  that  the  best  method  of 
iteration  is  not  the  merely  verbal,  but  rather  the 
method  described  in  the  preceding  quotation — 
that  of  presenting  an  argument  uin  a  series  of  dif- 
ferent forms  and  connections"  Iteration  means  a 
repetition  of  the  thought,  and  not  of  the  form  of 
expression.  It  consists  in  going  over  the  same 
ground,  but  not  the  same  course,  so  far  as  the  ver- 
bal form  is  concerned.  Otherwise,  it  descends  into 

15Jebb,  "Attic  Orators,"  ii.  p.  297. 


240  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

mere  tautology.  Variety,  here  as  elsewhere,  is  to 
be  sought;  the  question  being,  "How  can  I  pre- 
sent this  point  in  some  other  way  so  as  to  make  it 
clearer  and  more  emphatic?"  Further,  it  is  only 
the  important  points  that  are  to  be  emphasized  by 
iteration.  The  debater  must  keep  in  mind  the  per- 
spective of  his  argument  as  a  whole  and  observe 
the  law  of  proportion.  Emphasis  of  relatively  un- 
important arguments  detracts  from  the  emphasis 
of  important  ones.  Again  taking  the  paragraph 
as  the  unit  of  the  thought  development,  the 
stronger  arguments  are  the  ones  to  be  placed  first 
and  last  in  the  paragraph,  and  are  to  be  dwelt  upon 
with  greater  fullness  of  evidence  and  reenforced  by 
any  necessary  iteration. 

There  is,  of  course,  another  side  to  this  matter. 
There  is  danger  of  being  so  repetitious  as  to  be 
tiresome,  and  to  so  "overprove"  even  important 
points  as  to  insult  the  intelligence  of  an  audience. 
A  friend  once  asked  Daniel  Webster,  "How  did 
you  come  to  lose  that  case?"  and  the  reply  was, 
"I  overproved  it."  It  is  always  a  nice  question  to 
determine  just  when  the  point  of  greatest  emphasis 
is  reached,  for  to  go  on  elaborating  what  is  obvi- 
ous, is  weakening. 

For  the  purposes  of  argumentation,  energy  and 
movement  as  elements  of  emphasis  may  be  classed 
together.  Energy  may  be  largely  aided,  of  course, 


PERSUASION  241 

by  the  manner  of  delivery,  but  speaking  now  of 
form  of  statement,  it  should  be  the  speaker's  con- 
stant endeavor  to  make  his  style  as  sententious  as 
possible.  The  debater  must  study  and  cultivate 
the  art  of  putting  things.  He  must  make  his 
points  stick.  Hence  the  value  of  the  epigram.  A 
constantly  recurring  question  should  be,  "How 
can  I  make  the  expression  of  this  point  more  strik- 
ing?" "To  energize  knowledge  is  the  office  of 
persuasion."  Movement  is  the  complement  of 
energy.  The  hearers  must  be  made  to  feel  that, 
as  the  argument  proceeds,  some  real  progress  is 
being  made,  and  that  toward  a  definite  point.  The 
drift  and  purpose  of  the  whole  argument,  and  of 
each  division  of  it,  must  be  made  apparent  as  the 
proof  is  developed.  The  summary  and  transition 
are  aids  to  this  end,  but  there  must  be  logical  pro- 
gress. The  proof  must  move  along,  must  go 
steadily  forward,  not  back  and  forth,  not  round 
and  round,  not  by  leaping  of  gaps.  It  one  were  to 
journey  to  a  given  point,  he  would  take  as  direct  a 
course  to  it  as  possible;  and  yet  much  student  de- 
bating resembles  the  movements  of  a  dog  that 
might  accompany  our  traveler  on  his  journey — 
pursuing  a  zigzag  course,  turning  hither  and 
thither,  and  here  and  there  barking  up  a  tree.  The 
debater  must  follow  closely  the  course  as  staked 
out  by  the  main  issues.  Digression  and  discursive- 
16 


242  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

ness  are  foes  to  movement.     Burke  was  sometimes 
wont  to  err  in  this  regard.     Morley  says  of  him : 

In  the  process  of  a  long  discourse  he  was  never  satis- 
fied with  proving  that  which  was  principally  in  question, 
or  with  enforcing  the  single  measure  which  it  was  his 
business  to  enforce — he  diverged  to  a  thousand  collateral 
topics — he  demonstrated  as  many  disputed  propositions — 
he  established  principles  in  all  directions — he  illuminated 
the  whole  horizon  with  his  magnificent,  but  scattered, 
lights.  Having  too  many  points  to  prove,  his  auditors  in 
turn  forgot  that  they  had  undergone  the  process  of  con- 
viction upon  any. 

The  last  sentence  suggests  a  final  admonition 
regarding  emphasis.  A  student  is  apt  to  err  in 
"having  too  many 'points  to  prove."  Especially 
when  one's  time  is  limited  there  is  danger  of  prov- 
ing at  too  many  lines  of  argument.  It  is  far  better 
to  select  a  strong  argument  and  prove  it,  and  let 
minor  arguments  go,  if  necessary.  Weight  counts 
far  more  than  numbers.  Rhetorically,  there  is  all 
the  difference  in  the  world  between  an  enumeration 
of  arguments  and  a  chain  of  proof.  That  is  to 
say,  emphasis  is  of  far  more  importance  to  the  suc- 
cess of  an  argument  than  exhaustiveness. 

DELIVERY 

The  manner  of  delivery,  important  as  this  is  as 
a  means  of  persuasion,  is  not  within  the  scope  of 


PERSUASION  243 

this  book.  Two  matters  in  connection  with  this 
subject,  however,  may  properly  be  noticed  here: 
( i )  The  method  of  preparation  for  an  oral  argu- 
ment; and  (2)  the  sincerity  and  earnestness  of 
the  speaker. 

Method  of  Preparation. — Having  drawn  a 
brief  of  a  question  for  debate,  shall  a  speaker 
write  out  his  argument  in  full  and  memorize  it,  in 
whole  or  in  part,  or  shall  he  only  use  the  brief  as 
a  general  guide,  and  trust  to  the  extempore  method 
at  the  moment  of  speaking?  Each  method  has  its 
advantages  and  disadvantages,  and  so  much  de- 
pends upon  individual  experience  and  capability 
that  there  has  been,  no  doubt,  much  useless  theor- 
izing about  this  question.  No  dogmatic  rule  can 
be  laid  down  that  this  or  that  method  is  the  best 
for  every  occasion  and  individual.16  But  whatever 
method  is  used  at  the  moment  of  delivery,  proper 
preparation  for  debating  in  general,  and  for  any 
debate  in  particular,  requires  practice  in  reducing 
one's  thoughts  to  writing.  Practice  in  writing  out 
an  argument  in  full,  with  the  careful  weighing  of 
words  and  the  application  of  all  the  rhetorical 
principles  previously  discussed,  should  always  pre- 
cede any  attempt  at  extemporaneous  presentation; 

16  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  subject,  see  the  author's  "Ex- 
tempore Speaking." 


244  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

for  writing  conduces  to  orderliness,  exactness, 
force,  and  finish,  and  also — an  important  item 
when  a  speaker  has  a  time  limit — to  economy  of 
words.  Further,  whether  the  speech  as  written  be 
memorized  word  for  word  or  not,  it  is  far  more 
likely  to  come  to  the  speaker  in  the  orderly  form 
in  which  it  was  written  than  if  no  manuscript  had 
been  prepared  in  advance.  Just  what  use  may  be 
made  of  the  manuscript  must  depend  upon  the  in- 
dividual. It  is  always  a  question  between  accur- 
acy and  finish  on  the  one  hand,  and  freedom  and 
fluency  on  the  other.  In  formal  debates,  where  the 
line  of  argument  for  each  debater  has  been  agreed 
upon,  and  there  is  limited  time  in  which  to  present 
it,  it  is  best,  as  a  general  rule,  for  the  speaker  to 
get  the  form  as  well  as  the  substance  of  his  argu- 
ment pretty  well  in  mind.  But  the  debater  must 
acquire  the  ability  to  depart  from  his  prepared 
speech,  when  necessary.  Of  all  the  forms  of  pub- 
lic address,  debating  especially  requires  that  the 
speaker  be  flexible,  and  able  to  cast  aside  a  cut-and- 
dried  speech  when  occasion  demands.  His  intro- 
duction, for  example,  must  frequently  be  deter- 
mined by  the  state  of  the  discussion  at  the  time  he 
enters  it;  and  although  much  of  his  refutation 
may  be  planned  in  advance,  he  cannot  depend  upon 
that  alone,  but  must  often  reply  directly  to  an  op- 
posing argument.  Let  the  student,  then,  at  least 


PERSUASION  245 

in  his  initial  efforts,  write  out  his  argument  word 
for  word;  let  him  memorize  it,  if  need  be,  to  use 
as  a  sheet  anchor  for  his  sailing  while  confidence  is 
being  acquired;  but  let  him  gradually  learn  to 
speak  extempore,  wholly,  if  his  experience  and 
ability  warrant  this  method,  but  at  least  in  part,  as 
the  exigencies  of  debate  may  demand. 

Sincerity  and  Earnestness. — Sincerity  in  pro- 
fessed beliefs  and  earnestness  in  their  presentation 
are  prime  essentials  for  persuasive  debating.  It  is 
fundamental  that,  if  you  are  to  produce  certain  be- 
liefs in  others,  you  must  hold  those  beliefs  your- 
self. And  the  earnestness  of  a  man  with  convic- 
tions will  go  far  toward  making  his  speech  per- 
suasive and  covering  up  many  flaws  in  his  argu- 
ment. People  in  general  hold  their  opinions  so 
loosely  that  a  man  who  believes  anything  with  his 
whole  heart  is  sure  to  make  converts.  "In  argu- 
ment," says  Emerson,  "the  most  important  is  the 
dry  light  of  intelligence;  but  in  persuasion  the  es- 
sential thing  is  heat,  and  heat  comes  of  sincerity." 

Real  earnestness  will  be  indicated  by  these  two 
paradoxical  characteristics — positiveness  and  mod- 
esty. A  debater  should  be  an  advocate,  not  a 
judge.  His  convictions  on  a  given  question  should 
lead  him  to  a  sure,  positive  conclusion  regarding 
it,  and  this  attitude  of  positiveness  should  be  ap- 


246  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

parent  in  his  debating.  The  weak-kneed,  wishy- 
washy,  vacillating  style  accomplishes  nothing. 
How  often  have  we  heard  debates  where  a  speaker 
says,  in  substance,  "Some  say  this  about  this  ques- 
tion and  some  say  this.  I  rather  think  this  is  the 
way  we  should  look  at  it" — and  he  ends  by  leaving 
the  hearers  somewhat  uncertain  as  to  just  where 
he  stands  on  the  question,  because  he  is  apparently 
not  altogether  certain  himself.  Effective  debating 
requires  that  the  speaker  leave  the  impression  that 
he  has  reached  an  unqualified  conclusion  about  a 
question  and  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  the 
correctness  of  his  position.  And  this  very  posi- 
tiveness,  born  of  earnest  conviction,  will  carry  with 
it  the  quality  of  modesty.  That  is,  the  burden  of 
the  speaker's  plea  will  be,  not  "Hear  me  for  my- 
self," but  "Hear  me  for  my  cause"  He  will  sink 
the  individual,  and  put  forth  his  subject-matter, 
and  let  that  speak.  This  does  not  mean,  of  course, 
that  one  should  not  have  the  courage — even  the 
physical  courage — of  his  convictions ;  it  means  that 
for  the  most  effective  debating  a  man's  argument 
should  be  kept  in  the  foreground  and  his  person- 
ality in  the  background.  There  are  always  a  small 
percentage  of  our  public  men  who  persist  in  the 
too  frequent  use  of  the  pronoun  "I,"  and  who  mar 
the  effect  of  their  public  discussions  by  an  appar- 
ent effort  to  produce  the  impression  that  they  are 


PERSUASION  247 

of  more  importance  than  the  subject  under  discus- 
sion. This  same  attitude  shows  itself  in  student 
debating  when  a  speaker  says,  "/  think  so  and  so 
about  this  point,  and  /  think  that  the  argument  of 
my  opponent  is  untenable,"  etc. — while  the  unut- 
tered  comment  of  the  audience  is,  "Who  cares 
what  you  think?  Show  us  facts  and  arguments, 
and  we  will  decide  for  ourselves  what  we  shall 
think." 

In  actual  life  one  would  of  course  argue  for  that 
side  of  a  question  that  accords  with  his  convictions. 
In  school  and  college  debating,  as  in  the  practice  of 
law,  this  may  not  always  be  the  case,  but  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  speaker  may  not  be  both  sincere 
and  earnest.  He  is  not  to  decide  a  debatable  ques- 
tion in  advance,  but  is  to  leave  that  for  others; 
he  is  to  present  the  proof  appertaining  to  his  side, 
and  vindicate  it  before  his  hearers.  And  herein 
lies  another  distinction  between  school  and  college 
debating,  as  it  is  usually  carried  on,  and  the  real 
discussions  of  real  life:  in  the  one  case,  the  pri- 
mary object  is  to  win  the  debate;  in  the  other,  the 
primary  object  is  to  find  the  truth.  It  may  be  an- 
swered that  it  all  amounts  to  the  same  thing.  Pos- 
sibly so,  but  sometimes  not.  The  ambition  to  turn 
out  a  "winning  team"  often  leads,  as  in  athletics, 
to  professionalism  and  efforts  to  win  at  any  cost, 
even  by  "trick  plays."  Thus  one  of  the  foremost 


248  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

teachers  of  argumentation  in  this  country,  Profes- 
sor George  P.  Baker,  of  Harvard,  has  pointed  out 
that  intercollegiate  debating  "is  becoming  more 
and  more  a  highly  developed  special  form  of  de- 
bate— an  intellectual  sport."  It  by  no  means  rep- 
resents all  forms  of  public  discussion,  nor  all  kinds 
of  debating;  and  the  decision  of  the  judges  is,  after 
all,  only  an  incident;  especially  so  since  no  absolute 
standards  for  judgment  have  been  or  can  be  laid 
down.  In  any  case,  when  school  and  college  de- 
bating goes  beyond  the  point  of  friendly  rivalry; 
when  a  victory  is  so  emphasized  that  the  training 
derived  from  honorably  striving  for  it  is  lost  sight 
of;  when  a  warlike  desire  to  vanquish  a  foe  is 
greater  than  the  desire  to  convince  and  persuade 
men  of  a  truth,  and  the  guiding  principles  of  sin- 
cerity and  earnestness  are  thus  disregarded, — then 
such  contests  become  of  doubtful  value. 

In  this  connection,  two  admonitions  may  well 
be  heeded  regarding  what  may  be  termed  the  ethics 
of  debate:  (i)  Be  honest,  and  (2)  Be  respectful 
to  your  opponent  and  to  his  argument. 

I.  The  necessity  for  honesty  arises  in  two 
ways :  in  the  presentation  of  your  own  arguments, 
and  in  the  handling  of  those  of  your  opponent.  A 
debater,  for  instance,  if  often  tempted  to  "doctor" 
evidence,  as  in  the  statement  of  statistics  or  the 


PERSUASION  249 

quotation  from  an  authority  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  make  them  appear  to  prove  something  quite 
different  from  what  they  really  prove.  Not  that 
one  should  argue  the  other  side  of  the  case — leave 
that  for  the  opponent.  It  is  neither  necessary  nor 
proper  in  debating,  any  more  than  in  other  things 
in  life,  always  to  disclose  the  whole  truth;  but  the 
point  is,  when  anything  is  told,  it  should  be  the 
truth.  And  he  who  attempts  to  gain  an  unfair  ad- 
vantage by  violating  this  principle  most  usually 
only  cheats  himself,  for  let  a  single  such  case  be 
pointed  out  by  an  opponent,  and  the  audience  at 
once  becomes  suspicious  that  "he  who  is  false  in 
one  is  false  in  all."  Again,  whenever  you  have 
occasion  to  restate  an  argument  of  your  opponent, 
state  it  fairly.  In  this  respect  the  amateur  in  de- 
bate needs  to  specially  watch  himself.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  foolish  to  say  that  your  opponent  said 
so  and  so  when  the  hearers  know  better.  In  the 
second  place,  a  desire  to  erect  straw  men  to  knock 
over  often  leads  a  careless  debater  to  misrepresent 
— not  intentionally,  perhaps — an  opponent's  posi- 
tion regarding  a  mooted  point;  but  this  is  also 
fatal,  for  any  appearance  of  unfairness  in  the 
handling  of  your  opponent's  argument  only  preju- 
dices the  audience  against  your  own  argument. 
The  fault  arises  from  what  John  Quincy  Adams, 
in  his  "Lectures  on  Rhetoric  and  Oratory,"  calls 


250  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

the  error  of  answering  yourself  instead  of  your 
opponent.    In  Lecture  xxn  he  says : 

But  the  most  inexcusable  of  all  the  errors  in  confuta- 
tion is  that  of  answering  yourself  instead  of  your  adver- 
sary, which  is  done  whenever  you  suppress,  or  mutilate, 
or  obscure,  or  misstate  his  reasoning,  and  then  reply,  not 
to  his  positions,  but  to  those  which  you  have  substituted 
in  their  stead.  This  practice  is  often  the  result  of  mis- 
apprehension, when  a  disputant  mistakes  the  point  of  the 
argument  urged  by  his  adversary;  but  it  often  arises  also 
from  design,  in  which  case  it  should  be  clearly  detected 
and  indignantly  exposed.  The  duty  of  a  disputant  is 
fairly  to  take  and  fully  to  repel  the  idea  of  his  opponent, 
but  not  his  own.  To  misrepresent  the  meaning  of  your 
antagonist  evinces  a  want  of  candor  which  the  auditory 
seldom  fail  to  perceive,  and  which  engages  their  feelings 
in  his  favor.  When  involved  in  controversy,  then,  never 
start  against  yourself  frivolous  objections  for  the  sake  of 
showing  how  easily  you  can  answer  them.  .  .  .  There  can 
be  no  possible  advantage  in  supposing  our  antagonist  a 
fool.  The  most  probable  effect  of  such  an  imagination  is 
to  prove  ourselves  so. 

2.  Observation  of  student  debating,  as  well 
as  of  public  discussions  generally,  teaches  the  ne- 
cessity for  the  cultivation  by  the  debater  of  an  at- 
titude of  respect  toward  an  opponent  and  his  argu- 
ment. Remember  that  a  person  opposing  you  in 
argument  is  not  an  enemy,  but  an  opponent;  not  a 
falsifier  of  truth,  but  one  who  is  in  error,  and 
whom  you  are  to  set  right.  He  is  not  to  be  van- 


PERSUASION  251 

quished,  but  made  to  see  the  truth.  Furthermore, 
have  consideration  for  the  ideas  of  another: 
''Every  man  with  a  new  thought  may  be  a  Colum- 
bus in  disguise."  In  any  case,  he  is  entitled  to  a 
respectful  hearing. 

It  is  said  of  Pericles  that  when  interrupted  in  a 
speech  "he  gave  way  and  never  answered  sharply, 
nor  used  his  position  to  the  other's  discomfiture. 
In  his  speeches  there  was  no  challenge,  no  vituper- 
ation, no  irony,  no  arraignment.  He  assumed  that 
everybody  was  honest,  everybody  just,  and  that 
all  men  were  doing  what  they  thought  was  best  for 
themselves  and  others.  His  enemies  were  not 
rogues — simply  good  men  who  were  temporarily 
in  error."17  Non-recognition  of  this  principle  is 
shown  whenever  a  student  uses  such  expressions  as, 
"He  gets  up  here  and  foolishly  asserts  so  and  so," 
"He  harps  about  this  point,"  "We  now  have  him 
crowded  to  the  wall — he  is  completely  cornered." 
Avoid  any  attempt  to  be  a  "smart"  debater,  using 
any  of  the  stock  jokes  usually  associated  with  the 
country-school  debate;  as,  "The  gentleman  speaks 
as  though  he  really  believes  what  he  says,"  or  "He 
is  like  a  bird  flying  along  a  rail  fence — you  can't 
tell  any  one  moment  which  side  he  is  on,"  etc.  But 
it  may  be  perfectly  plain  to  the  audience  "which 

"Elbert  Hubbard,   in  Little  Journeys  for  January,   1905. 


252  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

side  he  is  on,"  in  which  case  such  remarks  are 
worse  than  useless.  Other  exhibitions  of  a  lack  of 
due  respect  and  of  a  proper  attitude  toward  those 
on  the  other  side  are  shown  when  a  speaker  dra- 
matically challenges  his  opponents  by  addressing 
them  alone,  accompanied,  it  may  be,  with  a  quasi- 
withering  look  or  gesture;  or  flaunts  an  authority 
in  their  faces;  or  otherwise  conducts  himself  in 
an  hysterical  fashion,  when  there  is  no  especial 
cause  for  excitement  and  when  the  refutation 
would  be  far  more  effective  if  presented  in  a  re- 
spectful and  dignified  manner. 

Courtesy,  aside  from  being  a  fundamental  qual- 
ity of  the  gentleman,  in  debate  helps  to  win  an  au- 
dience far  more  than  students  often  realize.  Ridi- 
cule and  irony  are  seldom  helpful.  Irony  that 
springs  from  personal  spleen  and  malignant  con- 
tempt for  those  against  whom  it  is  directed,  is 
neither  justifiable  nor  effective.  There  are  times, 
to  be  sure,  when  irony  may  be  as  a  "terrible  and 
fiery  finger,  shriveling  falsehood  from  the  souls  of 
men,"  but  it  is  a  dangerous  weapon,  and  should  be 
used  only  in  extreme  cases.  It  may  happen,  of 
course,  that  one  needs  to  answer  a  fool  according 
to  his  folly.  Sometimes  a  case  may  be,  as  the  law- 
yers say,  "laughed  out  of  court."  But  when  it  be- 
comes necessary  to  make  fun  of  an  opponent's  ar- 
gument, do  so  good  naturedly.  As  a  general  rule 


PERSUASION  253 

beware  of  the  ad  hominem  argument.  Anyhow, 
the  use  of  personalities  is  petty,  in  poor  taste,  and 
is  trying  to  an  audience  even  of  the  most  ordinary 
intelligence;  people  generally  are  growing  less  and 
less  tolerant  of  slander  and  personal  abuse.  And 
above  all,  in  the  stress  of  a  hotly  contested  debate, 
a  participant  should  watch  his  temper.  It  has  be- 
come a  truism  that  whenever  in  an  argument  a 
man  gets  angry,  he  is  as  good  as  beaten.  "Argu- 
ments cannot  be  answered  with  insults;  anger 
blows  out  the  lamp  of  the  mind.  In  the  examina- 
tion of  a  great  and  important  question,  be  serene, 
slow-pulsed  and  calm."  If  not  "calm,"  at  least 
self-controlled.  In  fine,  the  guiding  principle  in 
debate  should  be  the  subordination  of  partisanship 
and  personalities  to  a  search  for  truth. 

In  all  these  ways,  then, — by  appeals  to  emotions 
related  to  the  argument  and  adapted  to  the  audi- 
ence, by  the  use  of  the  rhetorical  qualities  of  con- 
creteness,  direct  discourse,  and  emphasis,  and  by 
the  manner  of  delivery, — persuasion  may  be  made 
to  supplement  and  reenforce  conviction. 


254  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 


EXERCISES 

1.  For  practice  in  adapting  persuasion  to  a  particular  audience, 
take  some  such  proposition  as:    Our  State  Legislature  should  ap- 
propriate  $ to  this   institution   for    [a   designated   purpose]. 

Write  out  an   argument  to  be  presented,  say,  to  the  legislative 
committee  to  whom  this  matter  has  been  referred.     Now  suppose 
you  were  to  present  the  same  line  of  argument  to  a  country  audi- 
ence during  a  political  campaign:    how  would  you  revise  your 
first  speech? 

2.  Put    the    following    statements    and    arguments    in    concrete 
form  by  the  use  of  a  specific  example,  an  illustration,  an  anec- 
dote, or  some  form  of  figurative  language: 

(a)  A  member  of  a   legislative  body  should   not  serve  as  an 
attorney  in  any  manner  for  a  public  service  corporation.     Since 
corporations  of  this  class  are  likely  to  be  subjects  for  legislation, 
an  attorneyship  for  such  corporations  is  incompatible  with  faith- 
ful  legislative  service. 

(b)  As  the  twig  is  bent  the  tree  is  inclined. 

(c)  In  politics,  as  in  other  relations  of  life,  honesty  is  the  best 
policy. 

(d)  Murder  will  out. 

(e)  Eloquence  results  from  a  conjunction  of  the  man,  the  sub- 
ject, and  the  occasion. 

(/)   The  mass  of  mankind  cannot  be  instructed  or  influenced 
by  abstractions. 

(#)   Diligence  is  the  price  of  success. 

(/;)   In  times  of  peril  strong  men  come  to  the  front. 

(i)    Our  multi-millionaires  are  a  menace  to  society. 

(/')    Ours  is  a  government  of  public  opinion. 

(k)   "America  is  another  name  for  opportunity." 

3.  Take  paragraph  30  of  Burke's  speech  on  "Conciliation  with 
the    American    Colonies"     ("Masterpieces    of    Modern    Oratory," 
pages   24-25),   and   let  the  student  note  the   logical   sequence  of 
sentences  by  underscoring  the  words  of  explicit  reference  which 
indicate  such  sequence. 

4.  To    illustrate    persuasion    arising    from    the    adaptation    of 
material  to  a  particular  audience,   analyze  and  discuss  with  the 
class  the  extracts  from  the  Lincoln-Douglass  debates    ("Master- 
pieces,"   pp.    142-151).      Further   examples    in   the   same   volume 
may  be  found  on  the  following  pages:    192-193,   214-218,   258- 
259,  263-264,  327-328;    and  an  illustration  arising  from  the  re- 
lation of  the  speaker  to  his  subject  will  be  found  in  the  opening 
of  Webster's  address    (pages  65-66). 


CHAPTER    X 

METHODS  IN  SCHOOL  AND  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

As  distinguished  from  debating  generally,  the 
practice  for  training  involved  in  the  debates  of 
school  and  college  demands  special  consideration 
as  to  the  organization  and  conduct  of  such  debates. 
Whether  in  a  class  exercise,  a  debating  or  literary 
society,  or  an  intercollegiate  debate,  the  methods 
of  procedure  are  essentially  the  same. 

General  Organization  and  Conduct  of  a  De- 
bate.— Custom  has  fixed  about  three  speakers  as 
the  number  on  each  side,  with  a  given  time  limit 
for  speaking,  and  varying  rules  as  to  rebuttal 
speeches.  There  being  three  debaters,  say,  on  a 
side,  no  one  speaker  is  called  upon,  nor  should  he 
attempt,  to  cover  the  whole  case  for  his  side — un- 
less by  way  of  partition  or  general  summary. 
That  is,  there  must  be  uteam  work,"  each  member 
of  the  team  having  a  definite  task  to  accomplish. 
It  is  therefore  necessary  that  the  speakers  on  each 
side  should  look  to  a  careful  organization  of  their 
argument  as  a  whole  by  a  threefold  division,  each 
speaker  being  assigned  some  one  main  line  of  ar- 

(255) 


256  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

gument.  The  division  should  be,  first,  exhaustive; 
that  is,  the  whole  field  of  the  argument  should  be 
covered;  and,  secondly,  logical,  that  is,  the  divis- 
ions should  be  related  to  each  other  by  natural  se- 
quence, and  such  relation  should  be  made  plain  to 
the  audience  as  each  speaker  on  a  side  presents  his 
particular  argument.  Whenever  necessary,  an  in- 
terpretation of  the  question,  if  practicable,  should 
be  agreed  upon  in  a  preliminary  conference,  in 
order  that  all  quibbling  over  the  meaning  of  terms 
may  be  avoided.  In  class  exercises  the  author  has 
found  it  a  good  plan  to  conduct  debates  in  accord- 
ance with  the  following  rules  of  procedure : 

1.  The   first-named   affirmative  and   negative  speakers 
are   respectively   the   leaders   for   each   debate,    with    the 
second-named  speakers  as  alternates. 

2.  One  week  prior  to  any  debate  the  respective  leaders 
will  confer  with  their  colleagues  and  divide  the  argument 
into  as  many  main  divisions  as  there  are  speakers,  assign- 
ing points  and  references  from  the  brief  previously  pre- 
pared. 

3.  Immediately  preceding  the  debate  each  leader  will 
hand  to  the  instructor  a  brief  written  outline  of  the  com- 
plete  argument,    with    the    respective    assignments;     and 
each  speaker  will  make  in  advance  a  written  outline  of 
his  particular  argument  and   hand  the  same  to   the  in- 
structor when  called  upon  for  the  oral  presentation. 

4.  The   arguments  must  be   presented   without   notes. 
Speakers  will  be  allowed  six  to  eight  minutes  each,  ac- 
cording to  the  number  participating,  a  one-minute  warn- 


SCHOOL  AND  COLLEGE  DEBATING     257 

ing  bell  being  rung.  The  affirmative  leader  will  have 
three  minutes  for  rejoinder.  Extempore  three-minute 
speeches  in  rebuttal,  by  unassigned  members  of  the  class, 
may  be  given,  as  time  permits. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Rule  2  above  implies  that 
at  least  the  leaders  shall  have  briefed  a  question  in 
advance.  This  requirement  is  essential  for  pre- 
venting superficial  work,  and  it  is  desirable,  of 
course,  that  all  those  assigned  for  a  given  debate 
shall  have  briefed  the  question.  In  any  event,  no 
debater  should  make  the  mistake  of  preparing  his 
particular  line  of  argument  solely.  True,  his  main 
work  is  that  of  presenting  and  defending  his  par- 
ticular division  of  the  proof,  but  he  should  also 
know  the  case  as  a  whole.  Thus  will  he  be  able 
not  only  to  see  clearly  the  relation  of  his  particular 
argument  to  the  whole  case  for  his  side  and  to 
make  such  relation  clear  to  the  audience,  but  also 
prepared  to  rush  to  the  defense  of  a  colleague  when 
the  exigencies  of  the  debate  so  demand. 

THE  WORK  FOR  EACH  SPEAKER. — With  the 
debate  organized  as  above  indicated,  let  us  exam- 
ine— necessarily  in  a  general  way — a  little  more  in 
detail  the  work  for  each  speaker. 

First  Affirmative  Speech. — The  opening  by  the 
17 


258  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

affirmative  leader  must  be  largely  introductory  and 
expository.  He  must  first  arouse  interest  in  the  sub- 
ject for  debate,  show  how  it  is  related  to  the  inter- 
ests of  the  audience,  make  clear  the  meaning  of  the 
question,  point  out  the  main  issues,  show  how  the 
affirmative  side  proposes  to  establish  its  case,  and 
then  move  into  the  first  division  of  his  proof.  In 
other  words,  he  should  cover  first  the  essential 
points  as  outlined  for  the  introduction  of  his  brief. 
But  the  opening  speech  should  be  something  more 
than  merely  introductory;  it  should  take  up  and 
develop  at  least  one  line  of  argument,  so  that  some 
real  progress  is  made  in  the  proof  before  the  nega- 
tive side  takes  up  the  discussion.  An  affirmative 
leader  is  sometimes  apt  to  spend  so  much  time  in 
his  introduction  that  he  has  no  time  left  for  posi- 
tive proof.  He  must  make  a  clear  and  .plausible 
prima  facie  case,  and  then  reenforce  this  by  evi- 
dence bearing  on  at  least  one  of  the  main  issues 
for  proof.  In  closing,  it  is  frequently  a  good  plan, 
if  the  question  lends  itself  to  this  method,  to  sub- 
mit certain  questions  or  propositions  which  the 
negative  are  bound  to  answer  or  prove  in  order  to 
meet  the  case  you  have  made  out. 

First  Negative  Speech. — The  opening  by  the 
first  negative  speaker  must  almost  always  be  a  di- 
rect reply  to  the  first  speaker  for  the  affirmative. 


SCHOOL  AND  COLLEGE  DEBATING  259 

To  that  end,  he  must  quickly  decide  his  answers  to 
such  questions  as:  Is  the  introduction  by  the  af- 
firmative acceptable?  Do  you  agree  with  his  in- 
terpretation of  the  question?  Is  his  analysis  satis- 
factory, especially  as  to  the  common  ground,  the 
issues,  and  the  burden  of  proof?  Does  the  par- 
tition of  the  affirmative  leader  cover  the  case? 
Is  the  proof  he  has  offered  directly  opposed  to 
your  assigned  line  of  argument?  If  not,  can  you 
safely  leave  it  for  one  of  your  colleagues  to  an- 
swer in  detail?  If  so,  deal  it  one  blow,  and  ex- 
plain to  the  audience  that  you  leave  the  details  of 
refutation  to  a  colleague  as  belonging  to  his  divi- 
sion of  the  negative  proof  as  a  whole;  that  is,  do 
not  give  the  impression  of  dodging  the  question 
by  an  arbitrary  postponement.  Now  outline  the 
case  for  the  negative  and  move  into  the  proof  of 
your  assigned  division.  In  closing,  propound,  in 
turn,  it  may  be,  questions  of  the  affirmative  which 
you  conceive  they  are  bound  To  answer  in  order  to 
establish  their  case. 

The  Second  Speeches. — The  speakers  second  in 
order,  affirmative  and  negative,  must  elaborate  and 
carry  on.  Do  you  accept  the  task  imposed  by  the 
last  speaker?  If  not,  readjust  the  case,  showing 
your  right  to  do  so.  Rapidly  summarize  your  col- 
league's preceding  argument  and,  when  necessary, 


260  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

strengthen  it  against  the  attack  of  the  preceding 
speaker.  Take  up  your  division  of  the  proof, 
'showing  its  relation  to  the  argument  of  your  col- 
league. Summarize  your  own  and  your  colleague's 
proof  up  to  this  point,  and  make  it  clear  to  the 
hearers  that  the  proof  to  be  offered  by  the  col- 
league who  will  follow  completes  a  logical  and 
strong  case  for  your  side. 

The  Third  Speeches. — Each  of  the  last  speakers 
in  direct  debate  has  both  to  elaborate  the  final 
points  and  to  conclude.  He  must  complete  the 
proof  as  first  outlined,  close  up  any  gaps  that  have 
been  left  by  his  colleagues  or  made  by  his  oppon- 
ents, summarize  the  whole  proof  for  his  side,  and 
leave  as  vivid  an  impression  as  possible  regarding 
the  strength  of  his  side  as  compared  with  that  of 
his  opponents.  To  "amplify  and  diminish,"  in 
concluding,  is  a  very  effective  method.  The  con- 
clusion should  not  only  sum  up,  but  it  should  also 
show  that  the  final  points  complete  a  strong  case — 
that  they  clinch  the  proof. 

Rebuttal  Speeches. — It  will  be  seen  that  the 
rules  to  govern  class  exercises,  as  previously  stated, 
provide  for  a  brief  speech  in  rejoinder  by  the  af- 
firmative leader.  The  rules  for  intercollegiate  de- 
bates vary  as  to  the  provisions  for  second  speeches, 


SCHOOL  AND  COLLEGE  DEBATING     261 

sometimes  a  representative  from  each  side,  and 
again  each  member  of  the  teams,  has  a  speech  in 
rebuttal.  In  the  latter  case  the  points  to  be  dealt 
with  by  each  speaker  are  determined  in  part  in  a 
consultation  with  his  colleagues ;  but  it  is  to  be  re- 
membered that  the  first  business  of  any  speaker  in 
rebuttal  is  to  defend  and  strengthen  his  particular 
division  of  the  proof — the  necessity  for  team  work 
must  never  be  lost  sight  of.  It  should  also  be  re- 
membered that  a  speech  in  rebuttal  should  intro- 
duce no  new  matter;  that  is,  it  is  not  permissible 
to  present  new  lines  of  proof,  although  new  evi- 
dence may  be  introduced  to  sustain  a  controverted 
point  which  has  been  presented  in  the  direct  de- 
bate;  Further  than  this,  little  can  be  said  of  any 
real  value  in  addition  to  what  was  said  in  the 
chapter  on  Refutation.  It  may  be  worth  while  re- 
peating here,  however,  that  rebuttal  which  degen- 
erates into  scattering  objections  makes  little  total 
impression;  that  the  repetition  of  a  number  of 
minor  points  carries  no  weight ;  and  that  an  attempt 
to  make  any  sort  of  a  detailed  reply  to  a  mass  of  ar- 
guments in  a  few  minutes,  is  futile  and  confusing. 
What  is  needed  is  to  select  the  fundamental  points, 
show  that  they  are  fundamental,  that  they  have 
been  proved,  and  that  therefore  the  proposition  is 
proved.  Rebuttal,  like  direct  proof,  must  be 
massed  on  main  points.  And  there  is  also  danger 


262  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

of  mere  assertion  in  rebuttal,  no  less  than  in  direct 
proof.  It  will  ordinarily  not  do  to  say,  for  ex- 
ample, "My  colleague  has  already  met  this  point," 
but  it  is  necessary  to  remind  the  hearers,  by  rapid 
review,  just  how  he  has  met  it,  and  why  his  proof 
should  be  accepted  in  preference  to  that  offered 
against  him. 

The  suggestions  offered  in  this  chapter  are,  after 
all,  only  suggestions.  They  are  by  no  means  in- 
tended to  furnish  a  system  to  which  all  debates 
must  conform.  The  necessity  for  a  well-organized 
plan,  however,  so  that  the  work  of  each  debater 
dovetails  into  that  of  his  colleagues,  cannot  be  too 
strongly  emphasized,  for  the  lack  of  such  organi- 
zation is  the  bane  of  much  student  debating.  The 
affirmative  speakers  must  establish  a  line  of  proof 
all  leading  to  the  same  end — they  must  make  out  a 
case.  The  speakers  on  the  negative,  too,  as  we  have 
previously  seen,  must  usually  do  something  more 
than  simply  attack  the  proof  offered  by  the  affirma- 
tive, they  must  also  make  out  a  case  to  replace  that 
of  the  affirmative.  Each  side  should  ordinarily 
hew  close  to  the  line  previously  marked  out.  It 
may  sometimes  happen,  of  course,  that  one  side 
may  have  to  abandon  its  prepared  line  of  argu- 
ment in  order  to  meet  the  case  as  presented  by  the 
other  side,  but  such  instances  are  rare. 


SCHOOL  AND  COLLEGE  DEBATING  263 

But  while  successful  team  debates  have  rigid  re- 
quirements as  to  organization  of  the  proof  and  di- 
vision of  labor,  good  debating  must,  on-  the  other 
hand,  necessarily  be  flexible.  In  tracing  the  gen- 
eral progress  of  a  debate  we  noted  the  necessity 
for  a  speaker's  quickly  deciding  how  he  should 
meet  a  given  argument  on  the  other  side,  and  how 
fully  he  should  meet  it,  always  bearing  in  mind 
that  he  must  leave  time  for  his  own  constructive 
proof.  He  who  has  not  learned  to  depart,  when- 
ever the  state  of  the  discussion  demands  it,  from 
a  cut-and-dried  speech,  is  at  a  great — and  usually 
a  fatal — disadvantage.  True,  in  most  questions  a 
thorough  study  of  both  sides  will  reveal  the  lead- 
ing arguments  pro  and  con,  so  that  one  may  pre- 
pare rebuttal  largely  in  advance.  But  general 
preparation  only  is  possible,  for  one  never  knows 
just  what  points  he  will  be  called  upon  to  refute, 
nor  just  how  they  may  best  be  treated,  until  they 
are  presented  by  the  other  side  in  actual  debate. 
And  it  is  this  very  uncertainty,  this  necessity  of 
quickly  adjusting  methods  of  attack  and  defense, 
that  makes  debating  the  most  flexible,  the  most 
difficult,  and  withal  the  most  stimulating  of  all 
forms  of  public  speaking. 


264  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

EXERCISES. 

Discuss  assigned  class  debates  for  the  purpose  of  determining 
how  well  the  foregoing  principles  have  been  carried  out.  Similar 
exercises  may  be  devoted  to  a  study  of  the  Lincoln-Douglas  de- 
bates ("Masterpieces  of  Modern  Oratory,"  pages  133-146,  or 
Bouton's  edition  of  these  debates,  will  furnish  convenient  texts), 
and  of  the  Hayne-Webster  debate  ("The  Great  Debate,"  River- 
side Series). 


APPENDIX 

t 

QUESTIONS  FOR  DEBATE 

The  following  questions  in  the  various  fields  of  poli- 
tics, economics,  sociology,  education,  law  (including  some 
moot  court  cases),  history,  and  current  events  have  been 
tested,  for  the  most  part,  in  class  exercises.  It  will  often 
be  found  advantageous  to  limit  general  propositions  to  a 
particular  locality  or  State. 

POLITICS  AND  GOVERNMENT 

I .  A  young  man  casting  his  first  vote  at  the  next  Presi- 
dential election  should  vote  for  the  candidate  of  the 


party. 


2.  United  States  Senators  should  be  elected  by  direct 
vote  of  the  people. 

3.  The  discrimination  against  the  Chinese,  in  our  im- 
migration laws,  is  unjustifiable. 

4.  The  Chinese  Exclusion  Law  should  be  extended  to 
the  Japanese. 

5.  The  white  citizens  of  the  Southern  States  are  justi- 
fied in  taking  all  peaceable  measures  to  insure  their  politi- 
cal supremancy. 

6.  Negroes    should    neither   be    enlisted    nor   commis- 
sioned in  the  United  States  regular  army. 

7.  The  Australian  ballot  system  should  be  generally 
adopted  in  the  United  States. 

8.  Government    by    commission,    similar    to    that    of 
Galveston,   Texas,   should   be   generally  adopted   by   the 
cities  of  the  United  States. 

(265) 


266  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

9.  The    President    of    the    United    States    should    be 
elected  for  a  term  of  six  years  and  should  be  ineligible 
for  reelection. 

10.  The  several  States  should  adgpt  the  initiative  and 
referendum. 

11.  The  suffrage  should  require  an  educational  quali- 
fication. 

12.  Women  who  pay  taxes  should  have  the  right  to 
vote  at  municipal  elections. 

13.  Compulsory  voting  should   be   introduced   by  the 
various  State  Governments. 

14.  Independent  political  action  is  preferable  to  party 
loyalty,  as  a  means  of  securing  reform. 

15.  The  predominance  of   one  political   party   in   the 
Southern  States  is  opposed  to  the  best  interests  of  those 
States. 

1 6.  A  nation   advanced   in  civilization   is  justified,   in 
the  interests  of  humanity  at  large,  in  enforcing  its  author- 
ity upon  an  inferior  people. 

17.  The  United  States  Government  is  unsuited  to  the 
administration  of  colonial  dependencies. 

1 8.  The  Indian  Agency  System  of  the  United  States 
Government  should  be  abolished. 

19.  The  United  States  should  maintain  a  larger  navy. 

20.  Conditions    demand    a    further    centralization    of 
power  in  the  Federal  Government. 

21.  In  actual  practice,  a  "liberal  construction"  of  the 
United  States  Constitution  has  always  proved  beneficial. 

22.  The  United  States  should  resist — by  force  if  need 
be — the  colonization  of  South  America  by  any  European 
power. 

23.  An  alliance  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,   similar   to   the   latter's   alliance   with   Japan,    is 
desirable  and  expedient. 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DEBATE  267 

24.  Arizona  and  New  Mexico  should  be  admitted  as 
separate  States. 

25.  The  annexation  of  Canada  to  the  United  States, 
if  peaceably  effected,  would  be  to  the  best  interests  of 
both  countries. 

26.  Cuba  should  be  annexed  to  the  United  States  as 
soon  as  practicable. 

27.  The  deportation  of  all  negroes  in  this  country  to 
one  of  our  island  possessions  offers  the  best  solution  of  the 
race  problem. 

28.  The  government  of  all  cities  in  America  should  be 
modeled  after  that  of  Glasgow,  Scotland. 

29.  The   United    States   Government   should   establish 
a  parcels  post. 

30.  The  Federal  Government  should   inaugurate  and 
carry  out  a  comprehensive  plan  for  the  improvement  of 
our  inland  waterways. 

ECONOMICS  AND  SOCIOLOGY 

31.  The  President  of  the  United  States,  by  and  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,   should   conclude 
reciprocity   tariff   treaties   with    foreign   countries,    along 
lines  prescribed  by  Congress. 

32.  The  United  States  should  exclude  all  immigrants 
who  cannot  read  and  write  in  some  language. 

33.  Government   in   the   United    States  should   create 
commissions   with    power   of   compulsory   arbitration    of 
disputes  between  employers  and  organized  labor. 

34.  The    adjudication    of    disputes    arising    between 
capital  and  labor  should  be  made  a  part  of  our  adminis- 
tration of  justice.     Granted:    (i)  that  labor  unions  may 
be  forced  to  incorporate,  if  necessary,  and  ( 2 ) ,  that  courts 
of  suitable  rules  of  procedure  be  created,  if  desirable. 


268  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

35.  The   taxation   of  the  intangible   assets  of  private 
corporations  is  desirable  and  practicable. 

36.  The    United    States    Government    should    assume 
control  of  the  anthracite  coal  mines. 

37.  The  National  Government  should  cooperate  with 
the  various   States,   or  civil  subdivisions  thereof,   in  the 
permanent  improvement  of  public  highways. 

38.  Consumers   generally   should   organize   to    protect 
themselves    against    the   exactions   of    labor   unions    and 
trusts. 

39.  Labor  unions  do  not  subserve  the  best  interests  of 
laboring  men. 

40.  Members  of  labor  unions  are  justified  in  resorting 
to  the  strike  for  preventing  the  employment  of  non-union 
laborers. 

41.  Interference  with  strikes  by  judicial  injunction  is 
a  menace  to  the  liberties  of  the  working  classes. 

42.  Trusts  should  be  suppressed. 

43.  The  cities  of  the  United   States  should  own  and 
operate  their  street  railway  systems. 

44.  Each  of  the  several  States  should  have  a  civil  ser- 
vice law  providing  for  the  selection,  by  competitive  ex- 
amination, of  all  appointive  officers  other  than  heads  of 
departments. 

45.  The   time   has   now   arrived   when   the   policy   of 
levying  a  purely  protective  tariff  should  be  abandoned  by 
the  United  States. 

46.  Subsidies  should  be  paid   for  the  development  of 
the  American  merchant  marine. 

47.  The  United  States  and  the  several  States  should 
have  a  graduated  income  tax. 

48.  The  United  States  and  the  several  States  should 
have  an  inheritance  tax. 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DEBATE  269 

49.  The   single   tax   system,    as   advocated    by    Henry 
George,  is  practicable. 

50.  The  New  Zealand  system  of  taxation  of  real  estate 
should  be  adopted  in  the  United  States. 

51.  The  products  of  the  Philippine  Islands  should  be 
admitted  to  the  United  States  free  of  duty. 

52.  A  Federal   Insurance  Commission   should  be  cre- 
ated with  power  to  classify  insurance  risks  and  to  fix  the 
premiums  to  be  charged  therefor;    to  designate  the  char- 
acter of  securities  that  may  be  taken;    and  to  prescribe 
the  manner  in  which  life  insurance  companies  may  invest 
their  surplus. 

53.  The  Norwegian  system  of  liquor  selling  should  be 
adopted  in  the  United  States. 

54.  The  New  York  system  of  high  license  combined 
with  local  option  is  the  most  practicable  method  of  deal- 
ing with  the  liquor  problem. 

55.  The  State  Dispensary  System  offers  a  better  solu- 
tion of  the  liquor  problem  than  State  prohibition. 

56.  The  prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic  is  preferable 
to  any  system  of  license,  wherever  public  opinion  sanctions 
the  passage  of  such  a  law. 

57.  From  a  purely  economic  point  of  view,  the  liquor 
traffic  is  a  source  of  profit  to  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment. 

58.  Eight  hours  should  be  the  standard  time  for  a  day's 
work. 

59.  Each   of   the   several    States   should   establish   and 
maintain  an  institution  similar  to  the  George  Junior  Re- 
public. 

EDUCATION 

60.  Women  should  be  admitted  to  all  American  uni- 
versities on  equal  terms  with  men. 


270  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

61.  Excepting    English,    the    fully    elective    system    of 
studies  should  be  introduced   into  all  American  univer- 
sities. 

62.  Compulsory  manual  training  should  be  introduced 
into  all  grammer  and  high  school  curriculums. 

63.  A  city  is  the  best  location  for  a  college. 

64.  The  college  course  leading  to  the  degree  of  Bach- 
elor of  Arts  hould  be  reduced  to  three  years. 

65.  Commercial   courses  of   study  should   be   incorpo- 
rated in  all  college  and  high  school  curriculums. 

66.  The  honor  system  should  prevail  in  all  college  ex- 
aminations. 

67.  The  education  of  the  American  negro  should  be 
industrial  rather  than  liberal. 

68.  No  study  should  be  prescribed   in  a  college  cur- 
riculum primarily   because   of   its   value  as  a   means   of 
mental  discipline. 

69.  Is  the  study  of   Greek   and   Latin   essential   to   a 
liberal  education? 

70.  The  German  university  methods  should  be  adopted 
in  the  United  States. 

71.  Military   tactics   should   be   taught    in   the   public 
schools. 

72.  Football  should  not  be  encouraged  by  those  having 
charge  of  educational  institutions. 

73.  "Association"  football  is  preferable  to  the  Rugby 
game. 

74.  Freshmen  should  be  excluded  from  all  university 
athletic  teams. 

75.  Freshmen  should  not  be  received  into  college  fra- 
ternities. 

76.  College  and  high  school  fraternities  and  sororities 
are  more  harmful  than  beneficial. 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DEBATE  271 

77.  Each  of  the  States  should  have  a  compulsory  edu- 
cation law. 

78.  This   State  has  not  an  efficient  system  of  public 
schools. 

79.  Each  of  the  cities  and  villages  in  this  State  should 
have  and  enforce  a  curfew  ordinance. 


LAW 

80.  Congress  should  have  the  exclusive  right  of  legis- 
lation   regarding   marriage   and    divorce    in    the    United 
States. 

8 1.  The  United  States  Supreme  Court  should  reverse 
its  Income  Tax  decision  of  1895. 

82.  In  the  Hayne- Webster  debate,  so  far  as  it  related 
to  the  origin  and  meaning  of  the  United  States  Consti- 
tution, Hayne  had  the  better  argument. 

83.  An  easier  method  of  amending  the  United  States 
Constitution  should  be  adopted. 

84.  Life  imprisonment,  with  a  restricted  power  of  par- 
don by  the  executive,  should   be  substituted   for  capital 
punishment. 

85.  Circumstantial    evidence    should    be    sufficient    to 
convict  a  saloon-keeper  for  violation  of  the  excise  laws. 

86.  A   lawyer    is    not    justified    in    defending   a   man 
whom  he  knows  to  be  guilty. 

87.  The  penal  statutes  in  this  country  should  be  so  re- 
vised that  the  reform  of  the  criminal  is  the  sole  object. 

88.  Expert  testimony  in  criminal  procedure  should  be 
abolished. 

89.  The  grand  jury  system  should  be  abolished. 

90.  A  married  woman  should  have  the  sole  control  of 
her  separate  property. 


272  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

91.  In  criminal  actions  three- fourths  of  a  jury  should 
be  competent  to  render  a  verdict. 

92.  Any   person    aiding  or   abetting   in    mob   violence 
amounting   to   a  crime   if   committed   by  an   individual, 
should  be  criminally  prosecuted ;   and  to  that  end,  protec- 
tion   should   be   furnished    by    State   or    Federal    troops, 
whenever  necessary. 

93.  In  every  case  of  alleged  crime  wherein  the  penalty 
is  capital  punishment  or  life  imprisonment,   the  nearest 
judge  in  any  court  of  record  should  have  power  to  im- 
mediately  summon   a   grand   jury   to   investigate   and    a 
petit  jury  to  try;  and  no  appeal  should  lie  from  the  ver- 
dict except  on  the  certificate  of  the  trial  judge  of  probable 
cause  for  appeal. 

94.  A  member  of  Congress  or  of  a  State  Legislature 
should  not  serve  in  any  manner  as  agent  or  attorney  for 
a  public  service  corporation. 

95.  Excepting    for   deliberate    and    intentional   self-in- 
jury, an  employer  should  be  held  unconditionally  liable 
for  accidents  to  his  employees. 

96.  The  Pennypacker  anti-libel  law  of  Pennsylvania  is 
an  unjustifiable  infringement  upon  the  freedom   of   the 
press. 

97.  The  Torrens  land  title  system  should  be  generally 
adopted. 

98.  The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of 
Marbury   vs.    Madison    (i    Cranch,    137),    is   not   well 
founded. 

99.  The  facts  did  not  justify  the  decision  reached  in 
the  case  of  Munn  vs.  Illinois  (94  U.  S.,  113)- 

100.  A  offered  a  reward  of  $1,000  for  the  arrest  of 
one  C,  who  had  committed  burglary.     B,  in  ignorance  of 
the  reward,   arrested   C.     Can   B   recover  from  A  the 
reward  offered? 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DEBATE  273 

101.  A  number  of  college  students  were  playing  base- 
ball in   a  customary  place  and   manner  on   the  college 
campus.     A  batted  a  ball  pitched  by  B.     The  ball  fell  in 
an  adjacent  public  street,  and  while  running  for  it  C 
scared  a  team  driven  by  one  Brown,  causing  them  to  run 
away.     Brown  sued  B  for  resulting  damages.     Can  he 
recover  ? 

1 02.  A  railroad  company  erected  a  roundhouse  near  a 
city  church.    The  church  services  were  interrupted  by  the 
smoke  and   noise  of   the  trains   and   the   members  were 
otherwise  seriously  discomforted.    The  church  brings  suit 
against  the  railroad  company  for  damages.     Can  it  re- 
cover ? 

103.  A  city  was  by  its  charter  invested  with  the  ex- 
clusive control  of  its  streets,  alleys,  etc.,  and  with  power 
to  make  all   necessary   improvements  thereon.     A  child 
nine  years  old  fell  into  an  uncovered  fire  cistern  in  the 
city  and  was  seriously  injured.     The  parents  of  the  child 
sue  the  city.    Can  they  recover  ? 

104.  A  employed  B  for  a  contingent  fee  of  $200  to 
procure  a  pardon  for  C,  then  a  convict  in  the  penitentiary. 
B  offered  the  wife  of  one  of  the  Board  of  Pardons  one- 
half  of  the  fee  to  assist  him  in  getting  the  pardon,  and 
she  accepted   the  proposition.      She  did   not  inform   her 
husband  of  the  agreement.     She  secured  a  recommenda- 
tion from  the  Board  and  the  pardon  was  granted.     Can 
B  recover  the  proffered  fee? 

105.  A  draft  is  endorsed:     "I  know  the  bearer,  Mr. 
Smith,  and  that  this  paper  will  be  honored.      (Signed) 
Henry  Jones."     Can  Jones  be  held  liable? 

1 06.  A  general  statute  of  New  York  forbids  a  private 
corporation   taking   realty  either  by  purchase  or  devise, 
while  under  the  laws  of  Texas  this  is  permitted.    A  party 

18 


274  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

dies  leaving  land   in  Texas  to  a  private  corporation  in 
New  York.     Can  the  latter  take  such  land  ? 

107.  A  places  in  the  hands  of  B,  a  real  estate  agent,  a 
tract  of  land  for  which  to  find  a  purchaser.     B  enters 
into  a  contract,  as  agent  for  A,  with  C  to  sell  him  the 
land.     A  repudiates  the  contract  as  not  binding  on  him, 
and  sells  the  land  to  another  party.     C  then  sues  A  for 
damages  for  breach  of  contract.     May  he  recover? 

1 08.  A   State  statute  forbids  the  sale  of  intoxicating 
liquors  to  minors,  students,  and  habitual  drunkards.     A 
student  over  twenty-one  years  of  age  brings  suit  to  compel 
a  saloonkeeper  to  sell  to  him,  upon  the  ground  that  the 
statute  is  class  legislation  and  repugnant  to  the  Federal 
Constitution.     Can  he  maintain  the  action? 

109.  A  large  mastiff,  owned  by  one  Fitzhugh,  while 
following  his  master  along  the  street,  ran  into  the  barn  of 
an    express   company,    and    while    in    the    barn   was    at- 
tacked  by  a  bulldog,   owned   by   the   express   company. 
Fitzhugh  entered  the  barn,  and  with  several  of  the  em- 
ployees of  the  express  company  tried  in  numerous  ways  to 
separate  the  dogs,  but  was  unable  to  do  so.     The  battle 
was  going  against  the  mastiff,  and  Fitzhugh,  seeing  that 
if  the  fight  continued  longer  his  dog  would  be  killed, 
shot  and  killed  the  bulldog.     Can  the  express  company 
recover  from  Fitzhugh  the  value  of  the  bulldog? 

no.  Defendant  made  written  offer,  May  16,  1884,  to 
buy  a  certain  block  of  stock  in  a  corporation  "at  any  time 
after  January  I,  1886,  if  at  that  time  you  desire  to  have 
me  do  so.  Not  because  I  want  the  stock,  but  solely  from 
a  feeling  of  friendship."  Plaintiff  accepted  the  offer 
July  9,  1886.  Is  defendant  bound? 

in.  Plaintiff,  when  two  years  old,  was  taken  into  her 
grandfather's  home  and  treated  as  a  member  of  the 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DEBATE  275 

family.  Evidence  established  that  she  performed  heavy 
household  work,  and  occasionally  worked  out  on  the 
farm.  After  residing  with  her  grandparents  until  she 
attained  the  age  of  twenty-three  years,  she  brought  suit 
for  her  services  during  the  preceding  twenty-one  years. 
Can  she  recover? 

112.  To  terminate  an  engagement  of  marriage,  the  fol- 
lowing  agreement   was   made:      "I    promise   to    pay   to 
Bertha  Hunter  $3,000  for  the  release  of  promising  to 
marry  her,   as  soon  as  she  is  married.     J.    M.   Bray." 
Plaintiff  afterwards  married,  and  then  brought  suit  for 
$3,000  on  the  written  contract.    Can  she  recover? 

113.  Husband  and  wife,  while  a  divorce  suit  was  pend- 
ing between  them,  entered  into  agreement  that  husband 
would  thereafter  pay  the  wife  a  certain  amount  monthly, 
in  consideration  of  which  the  wife  agreed  not  to  make 
defense  in  the  divorce  case.     The  wife  fulfilled  her  part 
of  the  contract,  a  divorce  was  granted  the  husband,  and 
the  wife  then  sought  to  enforce  the  contract.     Can  she 
do  so? 

114.  Defendant  entered  into     acontract  with  plaintiff 
to  complete  a  race  track  by  a  certain  day,  or  in  case  of  de- 
fault, to  pay  $100  per  day  liquidated  damages  for  delay. 
Plaintiff  sued,   setting   up   the   contract   and   its   breach. 
Defendant  admitted  the  breach,  and  offered  to  pay  the 
actual  damages,  which,  as  he  claimed,  were  less  than  $100 
per  day.    Is  this  a  good  defense? 

115.  A  sells  property  and  takes  several  purchase  money 
notes.    For  a  valuable  consideration  he  assigns  one  of  the 
notes  to  B.     Does  B  get  a  preference  lien  over  the  notes 
held  by  A? 


276  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

HISTORY  AND  CURRENT  EVENTS. 

1 1 6.  The  Norsemen  discovered  America. 

117.  In  our  war  with  Mexico,  the  United  States  was 
an  unjustifiable  aggressor. 

1 1 8.  The  Spanish-American  War  was  unnecessary  and 
unjustifiable. 

119.  England's  aggressions  in  Africa  were  justifiable. 

1 20.  The  French  Revolution  was  justifiable. 

121.  Napoleon  III  was  personally  responsible  for  the 
Franco-Prussian  War. 

122.  Richard     III     was     a     worse     monarch     than 
Charles  II. 

123.  Henry  VIII  was  not  justified  in  suppressing  the 
monasteries. 

124.  The  English  system  of  government  is  preferable 
to  that  of  the  United  States. 

125.  Switzerland  has  a  better  form  of  government  than 
the  United  States. 

126.  The   imprisonment   of    Napoleon    at    St.    Helena 
was  justifiable. 

127.  Was  the  execution  of  Major  Andre  justifiable? 

128.  Did  Aaron  Burr  aim  at  an  independent  empire? 

129.  Lincoln's  plan  of  reconstruction  was  preferable  to 
the  Congressional  plan. 

130.  The  Fifteenth  Amendment  to  the  United  States 
Constitution  should  be  repealed. 

131.  Webster  was  justified  in  his  attitude  toward  the 
Clay  Compromise. 

132.  John  Brown's  raid  did  more  harm  than  good. 

133.  The  English  parliamentary  system  should  be  ap- 
plied to  the  government  of  the  States. 

134.  The  taxation  of  the  English  colonies  in  America, 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DEBATE  277 

which  led  to  the  Revolution,  was  in  accordance  with  the 
British  Constitution. 

135.  English  interests  demand  the  adoption  of  Cham- 
berlain's colonial  tariff  policy. 

136.  The    United    States    should    unite    with   -other 
powers  in  expelling  the  Turk  from  Europe. 

137.  President  Tyler's  veto  of  the  National  Bank  Bill 
was  in  accordance  with  sound  public  policy. 

138.  President  Jackson's  theory,  that  the  executive  is 
constitutionally  independent  of  the  other  two  departments 
of  government,  is  correct. 

139.  The  administration  of  Andrew  Jackson  did  more 
harm  than  good  to  this  country. 

140.  Queen  Elizabeth  was  a  worse  woman  than  Mary 
Queen  of  Scots. 

141.  Slavery  caused   the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the 
United  States. 

142.  Should  Christian  Scientists  be  licensed  as  medical 
practitioners  ? 

143.  Senator  Reed   Smoot  should   have  been   deposed 
from  his  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate. 

144.  In  the  first  joint  debate  of  the  Lincoln-Douglas 
series,  Lincoln  had  the  better  argument. 

145.  Senator  Beveridge's  proposed  bill  relative  to  the 
products  of  child  labor  should  become  a  law. 

146.  Unjust  methods  were  used  by  the  French  govern- 
ment in  effecting  the  separation  of  Church  and  State. 

147.  The  methods  used  by  Mrs.  Carrie  Nation,  in  her 
anti-saloon  crusade  in  Kansas,  were  justified. 

148.  Mr.  Bryan's  idea,  that  the  ownership  of  trunk- 
line  railways  by  the  United  States  Government  will  ulti- 
mately prove  desirable,  is  correct. 


278  SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 

149.  The   school   authorities   of    San    Francisco   were 
justified  in  segregating  Japanese  pupils. 

150.  The  time  has  now  arrived  when  a  national  pro- 
hibition party  should  be  organized  and  vigorously  sup- 
ported. 


INDEX 


ABBOTT,  Lyman,  quoted,  40. 
Adams,  J.  Q.,  quoted,  250. 
Alden,  quoted,  14,  119. 
Amplifying     and     Diminishing, 

138-. 

Analysis  of  the  Question,  30-60; 
Steps  in,  32. 

Antecedent  Probability,  argument 
of,  92;  tests  of,  100. 

Appeal,  direct,  198 ;  indirect, 
198;  adaptation  of  appeal  to 
audience,  201 ;  to  highest  mo- 
tives possible,  202. 

Argument,  defined,  15. 

Arguments,  kinds  of,  91-124. 

Argumentum  ad  Hominem,  143 ; 
ad  Ignorantiam,  144. 

Aristotle,  quoted,  170. 

Arnold,  Matthew,  quoted,  17. 

Assumptions,  64. 

Authority,  argument  from,  105; 
tests  of,  107. 

BAKER,  quoted,  14,  132. 

Beecher,  quoted,  40. 

Beveridge,  J.,  quoted,  86,  99,  151. 

Begging  the  Question,  fallacy  of, 
140. 

Brief,  The,  158-190;  a  legal 
brief  defined,  160;  general 
characteristics  of  a  good  brief, 
161 ;  main  divisions  of,  165 ; 
form  of,  173 ;  Rules  for  brief- 
writing,  177;  Skeleton  form 
of  a  complete  brief,  178 ; 
Specimen  brief,  180-190. 


Burden  of  Proof,  52-60. 
Burke,  quoted,  50,  85,   114,  123, 
139,  199,  200,  204,  216. 

CARTER,  James  C.,  Esq.,  quoted, 

212. 

Choate,  Joseph   H.,  quoted,  213. 
Choat«,  Rufus,  quoted,  82,  202. 
Cicero,  quoted,  206. 
Clearness,  162. 
Coherence,  163. 
Common  Ground,  The,  42. 
Composition  and  Division,  145. 
Concreteness,  223. 
Conviction,  15. 
Curtis,   Geo.   Wm.,   quoted,  235, 

237- 

DEBATE,  advantages  of,  9;  ele- 
ments of,  13;  defined,  15; 
subjects  for,  19-28;  proper 
questions  for,  24;  ethics  of, 
248 ;  methods  in  school  and 
college,  255-263  ;  questions  for 
debate  (Appendix),  265-278. 

Definition,  metfiods  of,  33-42. 

Dilemma,  The,  137. 

Direct  Discourse,  232. 

Douglas,    quoted,    238. 

EMERSON,  quoted,  n,  195. 
Emotions,  appeals  to  the,  195. 
Emphasis,   234. 
Erskine,  quoted,  115. 
Evidence,   defined,   62;    tests  of, 
73-87. 


(279) 


280 


SCIENCE  AND  ART  OF  DEBATE 


Example  and  Analogy,  argument 
by,  112;  tests  of,  116. 

FALLACIES,  Special  forms  of,  139. 
GREENLEAF,  quoted,  79. 

HADLEY,  President,  quoted,  u. 
Higginson,  Colonel,  quoted,  224. 
Hoar,  Senator,  quoted,  136. 

IGNORING  the  Question,  142. 
Introduction,  The,  165. 
Iteration,  237. 

JEVONS,  quoted,  14,  15. 

Jordan,  David  Starr,  quoted,  65. 

"Junius,"  236. 

LINCOLN,  quoted,  31,  48,  49,  160, 
220,  225. 

MACAULAY,  quoted,  78,  142. 
MacEwan,  quoted,  219. 
Main  Issue,  The,  43. 
Marsh,  quoted,   198. 
Mill,    John    Stuart,    quoted,    39, 
118,  119. 

NEWMAN,  quoted,  199. 

Non  Seguitur,  fallacy  of,  146. 

North,  John  Henry,  quoted,  75. 

OUTLINE,  why  necessary,  158; 
different  kinds  of,  159;  dif- 
ferent types  of,  172. 

PARTITION  of  the  Argument,  168. 

Persuasion  16,  194-253 ;  in  the 
Introduction,  205;  in  the  Dis- 
cussion, 215;  in  the  Conclu- 
sion, 217;  rhetorical  qualities 

,    in,  223. 


Presumptions,  53. 

Proof,  defined,  62-70;  defined, 
62 ;  vs.  assertion,  63  ;  varying 
degrees  of,  66;  direct,  91-124. 

Proposition,  A,  necessary  in  de- 
bate, 19;  defined,  20;  stating 
the,  21. 

QUESTIONS  of  Fact,  68;    of  Pol- 
icy, 69 ;    for  debate,  265-278. 
Quintillian,   quoted,   35. 

RESIDUES,  method  of,  121 ;  tests 
of  124. 

READING  and  Classification,  Pre- 
liminary, 150-156. 

Reductio  ad  absurdum,  134. 

Refutation,  127-146 ;  defined, 
127;  rules  of,  128;  Lincoln's 
method  in,  129;  special  meth- 
ods of,  134. 

SCHURZ,  Carl,  quoted,  46. 

Sears,  quoted,  93. 

Seward,  Wm.  H.,  quoted,  207. 

Sidgwick,  quoted,  14. 

Sign,  argument  from,  101. 

Sincerity  and  earnestness,  245. 

Summary,  need  of  in  debate,  234 

THAYER,  quoted,  54. 
Transition,   defined,   236. 

UNITY,  164. 

VAN  DYKE,  HENRY,  quoted,  36, 
67- 

WEBSTER,  quoted,  31,  50,  77,  83, 
93,  102,  103,  130,  134,  141, 
216,  219. 


^jffSsT**  Vc^s°*U^H 

V"1-1-  »r,OV^  OIL  10  S°  .„    T^6 


J 


t 


yg  02358 


267355 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


